Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 14:12:56 GMT
This is going to come up at some point anyway, so who better than me to start it? While it's sad when anybody dies, I am finding myself short on sympathy for the people involved in this for a number of reasons. It probably doesn't help that I sense most of these people aren't the innocent charity cases that the media would have us believe. For asylum seekers, they have certainly shown a lot of disregard and disrespect for the countries they've been going through. You won't hear anything about it on the news, but one picture that accidentally got released was of what appeared to be a fight between the illegal immigrants outside the station in Hungary. When I look at the immigrant ghettos in the likes of the UK, Germany, and Sweden - which has apparently been titled "The Rape Capital of Europe" due to the number of rapes committed on ethnic Swedes by immigrants - it's almost stunning that some people could be stupid enough to believe that allowing an uncontrolled flood of immigrants from countries not known to be fond of the West will have absolutely no consequences at all. The other reason I have little to no sympathy is the fact that the West is - as it always is when anything happens involving the Middle East - completely to blame. If the West does get involved, it's responsible for the ensuing mess that takes place. If the West doesn't get involved, it's the West's fault for not doing enough. Like I said, many of these people come from countries that aren't even fond of the West, and we will literally be blamed for any and everything that goes wrong - damned if you do, damned if you don't. I see utterly idiotic articles on Sky News saying things like Britain's "shamed" by plight of children. Since when is Britain responsible for the deaths of children it has no control over? The one that gets me most is the irish people on the Joe Duffy show today. Many are pouring out the same old emotional non-sense about how they don't know how people could "turn their backs" on a hundreds of thousands of people who just forced themselves into Europe. It seems to me many Irish people are more interested in petting their national egos as the "hospitable Irish", and the consequences be damned. This country is a mess in several different ways, and yet there are people who have the nerve to say this country should take more than 600 people it apparently agreed to? So where will they live then? The houses of people who've been evicted the last 2 years or so? As already stated above, we are just letting random people in so how does anybody know what kind of people are actually coming in here? People from these countries have proven their contempt at idea of integrating into Western societies at the best of times, so how does anyone plan to make them now when they're coming in waves? Back to the Joe Duffy show, I heard one fellow saying that it would cost nothing to look after these people - really, it must be nice living in Cloud Cuckoo Land from time to time - and another woman even said she would "adopt" a family by letting them stay in her house. I don't think the woman's idea is entirely unreasonable, but only if she (and everyone with a similar idea) are willing do do the following 3 things: - Prove that you actually have somewhere for them to stay
- Prove that you can actually financially support them, and won't come begging for money later when you realise it's not as easy as you pretended it would be
- Take complete and utter responsibility for the people who you have "adopted"; i.e. if something goes wrong, you can be held to blame as the adopter.
I realise this is going to be one of those things where the rest of the forum takes exception to what I say, so let's have t it then. What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 3, 2015 15:32:10 GMT
This is going to come up at some point anyway, so who better than me to start it? While it's sad when anybody dies, I am finding myself short on sympathy for the people involved in this for a number of reasons. It probably doesn't help that I sense most of these people aren't the innocent charity cases that the media would have us believe. For asylum seekers, they have certainly shown a lot of disregard and disrespect for the countries they've been going through. You won't hear anything about it on the news, but one picture that accidentally got released was of what appeared to be a fight between the illegal immigrants outside the station in Hungary. Such behaviour is to be deplored obviously, but they are hardly representative of every asylum seeker.When I look at the immigrant ghettos in the likes of the UK, Germany, and Sweden - which has apparently been titled "The Rape Capital of Europe" due to the number of rapes committed on ethnic Swedes by immigrants - it's almost stunning that some people could be stupid enough to believe that allowing an uncontrolled flood of immigrants from countries not known to be fond of the West will have absolutely no consequences at all. I'm pretty sure that it's not solely the immigrants but also that the liberal position on sexuality that Sweden has surely has a role to play.The other reason I have little to no sympathy is the fact that the West is - as it always is when anything happens involving the Middle East - completely to blame. If the West does get involved, it's responsible for the ensuing mess that takes place. If the West doesn't get involved, it's the West's fault for not doing enough. Like I said, many of these people come from countries that aren't even fond of the West, and we will literally be blamed for any and everything that goes wrong - damned if you do, damned if you don't. I see utterly idiotic articles on Sky News saying things like Britain's "shamed" by plight of children. Since when is Britain responsible for the deaths of children it has no control over? You do have a point there Antaine, but Britian's response to the migrant crisis has left something to be desired. The Tories referring to said immigrants as a "swarm" says it all IMHO.The one that gets me most is the irish people on the Joe Duffy show today. Many are pouring out the same old emotional non-sense about how they don't know how people could "turn their backs" on a hundreds of thousands of people who just forced themselves into Europe. So should we just repatriate them where civil war (Syria) and lifetime conscription and general despotism (Eritrea) await them, not to mention the reprisals they will suffer for their "treason"? It seems to me many Irish people are more interested in petting their national egos as the "hospitable Irish", and the consequences be damned. It's not just that, perhaps they genuinely are concerned about the asylum seekers.This country is a mess in several different ways, and yet there are people who have the nerve to say this country should take more than 600 people it apparently agreed to? I would be one of those people. So where will they live then? Maybe the many ghost estates that can be done up very cheaply (and partially solving our own housing crisis in the process). The houses of people who've been evicted the last 2 years or so? As already stated above, we are just letting random people in so how does anybody know what kind of people are actually coming in here? People from these countries have proven their contempt at idea of integrating into Western societies at the best of times, so how does anyone plan to make them now when they're coming in waves? Insisting that people integrate themselves into Irish society is fair enough, but the reluctance of any refugee to assimilate does not absolve us from taking in as many as we can afford.Back to the Joe Duffy show, I heard one fellow saying that it would cost nothing to look after these people - really, it must be nice living in Cloud Cuckoo Land There is really no need to sneer at people performing a work of mercy. from time to time - and another woman even said she would "adopt" a family by letting them stay in her house. I don't think the woman's idea is entirely unreasonable, but only if she (and everyone with a similar idea) are willing do do the following 3 things: - Prove that you actually have somewhere for them to stayFair point.
- Prove that you can actually financially support them, and won't come begging for money later when you realise it's not as easy as you pretended it would beA reasonable point in itself, though not every immigrant is out to scam people as you seem to imply.
- Take complete and utter responsibility for the people who you have "adopted"; i.e. if something goes wrong, you can be held to blame as the adopter.Most of the migrants are adults and should be subject to the same procedures as any other adult. Your comment could also be interpreted as saying thatthe refugees are like children and lack common sense.
I realise this is going to be one of those things where the rest of the forum takes exception to what I say, so let's have t it then. What are your thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 16:18:07 GMT
I tried to quote you, but it messed up: "Such behaviour is to be deplored obviously, but they are hardly representative of every asylum seeker."
No, and I'm not saying it does. My point is that nobody seems interested in distinguishing between what type of people are trying to enter the countries. Let's be honest, of the violent ones, their behaviour is not going to miraculously improve when they get here.
"I'm pretty sure that it's not solely the immigrants but also that the liberal position on sexuality that Sweden has surely has a role to play."
People who are sexually liberal make themselves bigger targets, yes. But Young Ireland, you have scolded me as you felt I have generalised all these immigrants (fair enough), so for that reason I have to return the favour and say it's quite cruel for you to suggest that the women who have been raped were raped because they were dressing/acting in a sexually provocative manner. You don't know that.
"You do have a point there Antaine, but Britian's response to the migrant crisis has left something to be desired. The Tories referring to said immigrants as a "swarm" says it all IMHO."
That's because, rightly or wrongly, many people in Britain do see it as a swarm. As I've already said, there are parts of the UK that are no-go areas for ethnic British people because they have been essentially taken over by people who are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants that failed to integrate. Then of course you have controversies such as Rotherdam, where gangs groomed white girls and nobody cared because they were more interested in whether or not they would be labeled racists. Ireland has not had the trouble that Britain has, and seeing the kind of thing that goes on there it is no wonder they don't want any more people coming there. I haven't verified it myself, but one person said that apparently as much as 8 million people living in Britain weren't even born there.
"So should we just repatriate them where civil war (Syria) and lifetime conscription and general despotism (Eritrea) await them, not to mention the reprisals they will suffer for their "treason"? "
Do you not think that if there is a war in your country, you ought to fight for it? Also, do you really think either IS or Assad have the time or resources to go around punishing that many people while they're still waging war with each other? Also, most of the illegal immigrants are young men who have supposedly left their families at home while they secure a place for them in Europe. How do you think that will work out? To be honest, I'm more interested in the harm that will be done to European people when they find themselves outnumbered.
"It's not just that, perhaps they genuinely are concerned about the asylum seekers."
Yes, perhaps many are genuinely interested in actual asylum seekers, but they have allowed that to blind them to the consequences of uncontrolled immigration.
"This country is a mess in several different ways, and yet there are people who have the nerve to say this country should take more than 600 people it apparently agreed to?"
"I would be one of those people."
Fine then. How many do you expect to take, and how to you plan to handle them when they get here?
"Maybe the many ghost estates that can be done up very cheaply (and partially solving our own housing crisis in the process)."
Maybe I don't know enough about how that particular industry works, so please explain to me how you can fix up ghost estates on the cheap, and how that will solve the housing crisis.
"Insisting that people integrate themselves into Irish society is fair enough, but the reluctance of any refugee to assimilate does not absolve us from taking in as many as we can afford."
So if there are people who feel they are obliged to live here, but also outright refuse to integrate in any way to our culture, and instead create their own little culture within a culture, you think that's perfectly ok? You don't think that sounds out a strong message that people can come to this country, receive the benefits of this country, but not have to pay any mind to the customs of this country? You know that teenager Ibrahim Halawi who has been arrested in Egypt? His father is the most senior muslim cleric in Ireland, has apparently been in this country for nearly as long as I've been alive (from what I understand), and apparently he doesn't speak a lick of English. If you have ever heard some of the people in his family, you would think they were raised in the Middle East, and not Ireland. Do you think that's a good message to be sent out?
"There is really no need to sneer at people performing a work of mercy. "
I doubt some of the less well off in this country would see anything merciful about suggesting the country foot the bill for bringing in immigrants.
"A reasonable point in itself, though not every immigrant is out to scam people as you seem to imply."
I wasn't aiming that at the immigrants, I was aiming that at the people who claimed they could look after them.
"Most of the migrants are adults and should be subject to the same procedures as any other adult. Your comment could also be interpreted as saying thatthe refugees are like children and lack common sense."
I'm not saying they lack common sense, I'm saying I don't trust them. Especially when they come in large numbers. So do you think that if an immigrant does something wrong they will be punished appropriately by the courts in this country? Or are we going to get sob excuses about how it's not their fault because they have had such rough lives? One or the other then. As long as someone is held responsible for whatever might go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 3, 2015 18:10:06 GMT
I tried to quote you, but it messed up: "Such behaviour is to be deplored obviously, but they are hardly representative of every asylum seeker."No, and I'm not saying it does. My point is that nobody seems interested in distinguishing between what type of people are trying to enter the countries. Let's be honest, of the violent ones, their behaviour is not going to miraculously improve when they get here. Maybe so, but if they do break the law, I'd have no problem prosecuting them like anyone else and deporting them if convicted. Such events shouldn't be used as a pretext to close the borders to all asylum seekers."I'm pretty sure that it's not solely the immigrants but also that the liberal position on sexuality that Sweden has surely has a role to play."People who are sexually liberal make themselves bigger targets, yes. But Young Ireland, you have scolded me as you felt I have generalised all these immigrants (fair enough), so for that reason I have to return the favour and say it's quite cruel for you to suggest that the women who have been raped were raped because they were dressing/acting in a sexually provocative manner. You don't know that. I never suggested such a thing, nor was my statement ever intended to insinuate what you have read into my response. All I was saying that a culture (not people) which takes such an attitude to sexuality will inevitably have increased rates of sexual deviance. That's not the same as blaming rape victims for their predicament."You do have a point there Antaine, but Britian's response to the migrant crisis has left something to be desired. The Tories referring to said immigrants as a "swarm" says it all IMHO."
That's because, rightly or wrongly, many people in Britain do see it as a swarm. That doesn't make the use of such a term OK. A government is supposed to be more tactful than that.As I've already said, there are parts of the UK that are no-go areas for ethnic British people because they have been essentially taken over by people who are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants that failed to integrate. Perhaps the behaviour of groups like the NF, BNP and EDL are responsible for this to some extent? Then of course you have controversies such as Rotherdam, where gangs groomed white girls and nobody cared because they were more interested in whether or not they would be labeled racists. I am pretty sure that there are ethnic European gangs doing the exact same thing. Yes, action should have been taken there much sooner than it was, but to use it to bash immigrants (not saying that you are, but Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing populist Party for Freedom does use such tactics if I recall correctly.)Ireland has not had the trouble that Britain has, and seeing the kind of thing that goes on there it is no wonder they don't want any more people coming there. I haven't verified it myself, but one person said that apparently as much as 8 million people living in Britain weren't even born there. That's little over 10% of their population. America in the late 19th century had much higher percentages than that and no-one batted an eyelid."So should we just repatriate them where civil war (Syria) and lifetime conscription and general despotism (Eritrea) await them, not to mention the reprisals they will suffer for their "treason"? "Do you not think that if there is a war in your country, you ought to fight for it? Also, do you really think either IS or Assad have the time or resources to go around punishing that many people while they're still waging war with each other? Yes they do. Also, most of the illegal immigrants are young men who have supposedly left their families at home while they secure a place for them in Europe. How do you think that will work out? That's what the Irish did in England and America for decades. To be honest, I'm more interested in the harm that will be done to European people when they find themselves outnumbered. Well, we needn't worry about that for a long time."It's not just that, perhaps they genuinely are concerned about the asylum seekers."
Yes, perhaps many are genuinely interested in actual asylum seekers, but they have allowed that to blind them to the consequences of uncontrolled immigration. Which are?"This country is a mess in several different ways, and yet there are people who have the nerve to say this country should take more than 600 people it apparently agreed to?"
"I would be one of those people."
Fine then. How many do you expect to take, and how to you plan to handle them when they get here? 4,500. When they arrive, they should be provided with basic lodgings and any able-bodied persons should be trained up and assigned work in community employment/ Tidy Towns type work in return for the minimum wage."Maybe the many ghost estates that can be done up very cheaply (and partially solving our own housing crisis in the process)."Maybe I don't know enough about how that particular industry works, so please explain to me how you can fix up ghost estates on the cheap, and how that will solve the housing crisis. It won't solve the housing crisis by itself, but surely making said houses habitable would be much cheaper than building new houses from scratch."Insisting that people integrate themselves into Irish society is fair enough, but the reluctance of any refugee to assimilate does not absolve us from taking in as many as we can afford."So if there are people who feel they are obliged to live here, but also outright refuse to integrate in any way to our culture, and instead create their own little culture within a culture, you think that's perfectly ok? It's not ideal, but as long as they are not breaking the law, what harm are they doing? You don't think that sounds out a strong message that people can come to this country, receive the benefits of this country, but not have to pay any mind to the customs of this country? You know that teenager Ibrahim Halawi who has been arrested in Egypt? His father is the most senior muslim cleric in Ireland, has apparently been in this country for nearly as long as I've been alive (from what I understand), and apparently he doesn't speak a lick of English. If you have ever heard some of the people in his family, you would think they were raised in the Middle East, and not Ireland. They might not be representative of all Muslims in this country. Do you think that's a good message to be sent out? If true, no. People should make some effort to learn English."There is really no need to sneer at people performing a work of mercy. "I doubt some of the less well off in this country would see anything merciful about suggesting the country foot the bill for bringing in immigrants. The people coming here are fleeing things far worse than anything here. There are no genocides happening here, for example."A reasonable point in itself, though not every immigrant is out to scam people as you seem to imply."
I wasn't aiming that at the immigrants, I was aiming that at the people who claimed they could look after them. OK, fair enough."Most of the migrants are adults and should be subject to the same procedures as any other adult. Your comment could also be interpreted as saying thatthe refugees are like children and lack common sense."
I'm not saying they lack common sense, I'm saying I don't trust them. Especially when they come in large numbers. So do you think that if an immigrant does something wrong they will be punished appropriately by the courts in this country? Yes. Or are we going to get sob excuses about how it's not their fault because they have had such rough lives? Many Irish people use this excuse as well, so it's not just the immigrants.One or the other then. As long as someone is held responsible for whatever might go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 3, 2015 18:43:03 GMT
I'm too distracted right now to really contribute, and besides-- it's a subject where I feel rather confused and unsure. I have not paid sufficient attention to it to feel qualified to comment. But, Antaine, it's certainly not a case of everyone else on the forum disagreeing with you. I believe we have to listen to the story of the Good Samaritan but I absolutely accept the importance of the points you make, and I'm surprised at the naivety of people who don't seem to take them into an account. I think you have enormous moral courage, my friend.
This is in no way to discount the points that Young Ireland has made, which are also very valid.
My father often makes the point that the people who make this transit are the people who can afford the smuggling fee. It is not the poorest of the poor. It is the better-off, comparatively speaking. I don't know if that's true, but it seems a fair point.
Ultimately I do think considerations of humanity are the overriding concern, and I am haunted by the failure of Europe (and Ireland) to admit Jewish refugees during the Holocaust. But is this really a comparable situation? Or do we sometimes have to give people the benefit of the doubt, for fear of making a terrible and irreversible mistake?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 20:18:03 GMT
"Maybe so, but if they do break the law, I'd have no problem prosecuting them like anyone else and deporting them if convicted. Such events shouldn't be used as a pretext to close the borders to all asylum seekers."
That would be well and good if you were the one prosecuting them, but I'll get back to that later. No, it shouldn't be a reason for keeping out actual asylum seekers. Setting up measures to discern between people should be responsible for that duty, but honestly who in this country will be bothered with that?
"I never suggested such a thing, nor was my statement ever intended to insinuate what you have read into my response. All I was saying that a culture (not people) which takes such an attitude to sexuality will inevitably have increased rates of sexual deviance. That's not the same as blaming rape victims for their predicament."
Fine then, apologies for misrepresenting what you said. Yes, you have a point.
"That doesn't make the use of such a term OK. A government is supposed to be more tactful than that."
Alright.
"Perhaps the behaviour of groups like the NF, BNP and EDL are responsible for this to some extent? "
EDL is only 2009. I don't think BNP or FN have ever been powerful enough to cause this situation. It doesn't explain why innocent people walking through the area are apparently made to feel unwelcome.
"I am pretty sure that there are ethnic European gangs doing the exact same thing. Yes, action should have been taken there much sooner than it was, but to use it to bash immigrants (not saying that you are, but Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing populist Party for Freedom does use such tactics if I recall correctly.)"
Yes, but as far as I know not to this extent (though I stand to be corrected). No, it's not an excuse to blame all, but if you notice a pattern then it would be stupid not to be cautious.
"That's little over 10% of their population. America in the late 19th century had much higher percentages than that and no-one batted an eyelid."
Different time, different place, different situation. The world was not the same place it is now, and governments didn't work they way they do now.
"Do you not think that if there is a war in your country, you ought to fight for it? Also, do you really think either IS or Assad have the time or resources to go around punishing that many people while they're still waging war with each other?"
"Yes they do."
What good would it do the Assad regime to divert attention to people just for leaving? IS, maybe.
"Also, most of the illegal immigrants are young men who have supposedly left their families at home while they secure a place for them in Europe. How do you think that will work out?"
"That's what the Irish did in England and America for decades."
Well that doesn't sound too good.
"To be honest, I'm more interested in the harm that will be done to European people when they find themselves outnumbered. "
"Well, we needn't worry about that for a long time."
I'm not too sure about that.
"Yes, perhaps many are genuinely interested in actual asylum seekers, but they have allowed that to blind them to the consequences of uncontrolled immigration."
"Which are?"
Mass uncontrolled immigration means it's more difficult to keep track of who's entering your country. When that happens, people tend to go their own way, and not integrate. People who don't integrate don't usually mix well with the rest of the population, and some will see the population as fair game for crime - case: Sweden, "Rape Capital of the World". Not all, no, but it's still something to keep in mind.
"Fine then. How many do you expect to take, and how to you plan to handle them when they get here?"
"4,500. When they arrive, they should be provided with basic lodgings and any able-bodied persons should be trained up and assigned work in community employment/ Tidy Towns type work in return for the minimum wage."
That's a fair enough plan and number, but should some show no interest in it? I'm not sure they'll be sent out of the country so easily.
"It won't solve the housing crisis by itself, but surely making said houses habitable would be much cheaper than building new houses from scratch."
True.
"So if there are people who feel they are obliged to live here, but also outright refuse to integrate in any way to our culture, and instead create their own little culture within a culture, you think that's perfectly ok?"
"It's not ideal, but as long as they are not breaking the law, what harm are they doing? "
I disagree. I believe, as mentioned above, that when people fail to integrate, you open up a doorway to trouble somewhere down the line. If you're going to live in another country, you should make every effort to learn the language and basically mix with the people there. If somebody has an attitude that they don't want to be like the people of the country they moved to, do you not think that's very telling of how they might interact with the rest of the country?
"His father is the most senior muslim cleric in Ireland, has apparently been in this country for nearly as long as I've been alive (from what I understand), and apparently he doesn't speak a lick of English. If you have ever heard some of the people in his family, you would think they were raised in the Middle East, and not Ireland."
"They might not be representative of all Muslims in this country. "
Perhaps not, but they are a very prominent family, so it is a rather significant point.
"The people coming here are fleeing things far worse than anything here. There are no genocides happening here, for example."
That's not the point. If you have a family that is already struggling to make ends meet, and suddenly they're asked to pay a bit more to help people from another country, do you think that they'd be ok with that? They have their own families to worry about.
"I'm not saying they lack common sense, I'm saying I don't trust them. Especially when they come in large numbers. So do you think that if an immigrant does something wrong they will be punished appropriately by the courts in this country? "
"Yes."
I have my doubts about that. The courts in this country are miserable enough when it comes to handing out just punishment. I don't expect them to do a much better job in such a scenario. "Or are we going to get sob excuses about how it's not their fault because they have had such rough lives? "
"Many Irish people use this excuse as well, so it's not just the immigrants."
Exactly.
Maolsheachlann,
I wouldn't call it moral courage at all. It's just arguing against a position that I feel is dangerously unmoderated and not entirely thought through by some of the people pushing it (especially the politicians). Also, I have seen this comparison to the Jews during WW2 and I don't agree with it at all. Or at least not for all of the people entering Europe. Not all of them are facing genocide.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 3, 2015 20:42:14 GMT
"Maybe so, but if they do break the law, I'd have no problem prosecuting them like anyone else and deporting them if convicted. Such events shouldn't be used as a pretext to close the borders to all asylum seekers."
That would be well and good if you were the one prosecuting them, but I'll get back to that later. No, it shouldn't be a reason for keeping out actual asylum seekers. Setting up measures to discern between people should be responsible for that duty, but honestly who in this country will be bothered with that? The Gardai, I hope."I never suggested such a thing, nor was my statement ever intended to insinuate what you have read into my response. All I was saying that a culture (not people) which takes such an attitude to sexuality will inevitably have increased rates of sexual deviance. That's not the same as blaming rape victims for their predicament."
Fine then, apologies for misrepresenting what you said. Yes, you have a point. Thanks."Perhaps the behaviour of groups like the NF, BNP and EDL are responsible for this to some extent? "
EDL is only 2009. I don't think BNP or FN have ever been powerful enough to cause this situation. It doesn't explain why innocent people walking through the area are apparently made to feel unwelcome. The EDL might be weaker now, but there are plenty other groups where they came from, like Britain First, whose trademark tactic is picketing mosques while drinking alcohol."I am pretty sure that there are ethnic European gangs doing the exact same thing. Yes, action should have been taken there much sooner than it was, but to use it to bash immigrants (not saying that you are, but Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing populist Party for Freedom does use such tactics if I recall correctly.)"
Yes, but as far as I know not to this extent (though I stand to be corrected). No, it's not an excuse to blame all, but if you notice a pattern then it would be stupid not to be cautious. If there is a pattern, we should target the beliefs, not the people."That's little over 10% of their population. America in the late 19th century had much higher percentages than that and no-one batted an eyelid."
Different time, different place, different situation. The world was not the same place it is now, and governments didn't work they way they do now. Similarities do exist. Many American nativists in the 19th century were saying very similar things about the Irish and other immigrants as are being said about today's immigrants."Do you not think that if there is a war in your country, you ought to fight for it? Also, do you really think either IS or Assad have the time or resources to go around punishing that many people while they're still waging war with each other?"
"Yes they do."
What good would it do the Assad regime to divert attention to people just for leaving? IS, maybe. There's no guarantee that these people will be safe back in Syria, and I wouldn't want to take the chance."Yes, perhaps many are genuinely interested in actual asylum seekers, but they have allowed that to blind them to the consequences of uncontrolled immigration."
"Which are?"
Mass uncontrolled immigration means it's more difficult to keep track of who's entering your country. When that happens, people tend to go their own way, and not integrate. People who don't integrate don't usually mix well with the rest of the population, and some will see the population as fair game for crime - case: Sweden, "Rape Capital of the World". Not all, no, but it's still something to keep in mind. OK, so what immigration policy would you advocate?"Fine then. How many do you expect to take, and how to you plan to handle them when they get here?"
"4,500. When they arrive, they should be provided with basic lodgings and any able-bodied persons should be trained up and assigned work in community employment/ Tidy Towns type work in return for the minimum wage."
That's a fair enough plan and number, but should some show no interest in it? I'm not sure they'll be sent out of the country so easily. They can do anything they wish as long as they are contributing economically to Irish society, otherwise they will be refused entry unless there is a overriding humanitarian reason."So if there are people who feel they are obliged to live here, but also outright refuse to integrate in any way to our culture, and instead create their own little culture within a culture, you think that's perfectly ok?" "It's not ideal, but as long as they are not breaking the law, what harm are they doing? "I disagree. I believe, as mentioned above, that when people fail to integrate, you open up a doorway to trouble somewhere down the line. If you're going to live in another country, you should make every effort to learn the language and basically mix with the people there. If somebody has an attitude that they don't want to be like the people of the country they moved to, do you not think that's very telling of how they might interact with the rest of the country? Agreed, but it's not fair to demand full integration where this might infringe on religious freedom, for example."The people coming here are fleeing things far worse than anything here. There are no genocides happening here, for example."
That's not the point. If you have a family that is already struggling to make ends meet, and suddenly they're asked to pay a bit more to help people from another country, do you think that they'd be ok with that? They have their own families to worry about. Some people can't afford it and that's fair enough. But if you can afford it, surely it's not too much to ask.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 21:08:18 GMT
"The EDL might be weaker now, but there are plenty other groups where they came from, like Britain First, whose trademark tactic is picketing mosques while drinking alcohol."
Again though, were these people really powerful enough to create ghettos? I doubt it. I think that might just be making excuses.
"If there is a pattern, we should target the beliefs, not the people."
The problem is whether it's a cultural thing though, hence why certain people are targeted.
"Similarities do exist. Many American nativists in the 19th century were saying very similar things about the Irish and other immigrants as are being said about today's immigrants."
Yes, but the Irish knew that they weren't going to the US or Britain to claim benefits. People who travel to countries now are fairly pampered compared to the people in previous times.
"There's no guarantee that these people will be safe back in Syria, and I wouldn't want to take the chance."
Fine. As long as they return the favour.
"OK, so what immigration policy would you advocate?"
Maybe start by preventing people from fully settling into a country until you have a better idea of who they might be, or what their past is? Is that not just common sense that you should try to reduce future trouble by making some attempt to find out who's trying to get in? Hungary tried to send some people to a refugee holding camp of some kind, but many of them seemed reluctant to go, even though they would be safe. What are they so afraid of if they're all just innocents fleeing war?
A side not to this, I seem to recall the Late Late show once had a guest on their show who was a leader of some sort in the "Free Syrian Army". He lived here in Ireland. He also didn't speak English, and so needed his Irish born wife to do the communicating for him. So about the kind of people we're letting into this country...
"They can do anything they wish as long as they are contributing economically to Irish society, otherwise they will be refused entry unless there is a overriding humanitarian reason."
But that's the thing. If they refuse to contribute, they most likely won't be sent out for "humanitarian reasons". They said the same about the hate preacher Abu Qatada in Britain.
"Agreed, but it's not fair to demand full integration where this might infringe on religious freedom, for example."
I don't expect anyone to fully abandon their own customs (especially if they plan on being here temporarily only), but I do expect them to make an effort to part-take, and if their customs start to clash with our own, for whatever reason, I expect them to be prepared to change.
"Some people can't afford it and that's fair enough. But if you can afford it, surely it's not too much to ask."
If I know who my money is going to help - that they are people genuinely in need and making an effort, and not just scroungers looking for an easy pass - then no, I don't think it's too much to ask.
PS - When I said people were reluctant to go to the Hungarian refugee holding camps, that was putting it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Sept 4, 2015 12:26:03 GMT
It's best to remember that for generations, many Irish have survived upon the generosity of other countries. Even now I have friends and extended family who have left for the US, Canada, Australia, England and elsewhere to find work. For a long time people like us had to put up with the infamous 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish' signs and similar.
Of course we should be sorting out the homelessness crisis, but that doesn't mean we can't help others too, up to our limit (Young Ireland's figure of 4,500 seems quite reasonable, and giving people menial work of the kind he suggests is not a bad thing either since it avoids the frustrations we see people going through in direct provision). There's nothing intrinsically worse about immigrants fleeing ISIS, Assad et al. compared to any other humans, Irish included. There are plenty of Irish people I've met with disgusting attitudes about sexuality who see rape as a casual joke, and there are plenty of immigrants who put us Irish Christians to shame with their devotion and upstanding morality. Sure, we'll probably get a few criminals in with everyone else, but we can hardly leave people to die on the basis that a small minority might or might not be criminals. Besides, that's an enormous judgement to make without evidence and these migrants hardly have documentation to prove who they are.
Yes, cultural integration is the better approach (the US did this well until recently) rather than the ghettoisation we see under a 'multi-cultural' policy.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 4, 2015 12:36:27 GMT
It's best to remember that for generations, many Irish have survived upon the generosity of other countries. Even now I have friends and extended family who have left for the US, Canada, Australia, England and elsewhere to find work. For a long time people like us had to put up with the infamous 'No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish' signs and similar. Of course we should be sorting out the homelessness crisis, but that doesn't mean we can't help others too, up to our limit (Young Ireland's figure of 4,500 seems quite reasonable, and giving people menial work of the kind he suggests is not a bad thing either since it avoids the frustrations we see people going through in direct provision). There's nothing intrinsically worse about immigrants fleeing ISIS, Assad et al. compared to any other humans, Irish included. There are plenty of Irish people I've met with disgusting attitudes about sexuality who see rape as a casual joke, and there are plenty of immigrants who put us Irish Christians to shame with their devotion and upstanding morality. Sure, we'll probably get a few criminals in with everyone else, but we can hardly leave people to die on the basis that a small minority might or might not be criminals. Besides, that's an enormous judgement to make without evidence and these migrants hardly have documentation to prove who they are. Yes, cultural integration is the better approach (the US did this well until recently) rather than the ghettoisation we see under a 'multi-cultural' policy. I completely agree with Ranger. As long as they are willing to make an effort to assimilate into Irish society, we should welcome these refugees with open arms.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 4, 2015 13:41:58 GMT
I have to say, it's the language of equivalence that bothers me. "There are bad Irish too" seems a bit naïve and simplistic. Sure, we share a common human nature, we are all children of God, but there are radically different outlooks inherent in different cultures. When we see the savagery of ISIS, surely it MUST give us pause that we may well be creating a (bigger) recruiting pool here for such groups in the future?
There are Irish murderers and drug gangs and rapists, sure, but they are unlikely to be recruited into Islamic terrorism no matter how bad they are. Indeed, it's the quiet and serious-minded and idealistic ones who seem to be drawn to such groups.
Having said all this, I'm not even arguing against integration or against absorbing as large a number as we can (how does anyone come to a calculation of what is possible, by the way? Young Ireland, what did you base 4,500 upon?). I agree with Ranger that any credible risk that a human being is in danger of losing his or her life has to be respected.
But, as Antaine says, the situation is very different to Irish people going to work in America or Australia or Canada. I have to say, the response that "this is what nativists said about Irish immigrants" seems very comparable, to me, to "this is what people said about giving the vote to women" or "this is what people said about civil rights" that we so often hear from the progressive left; in the same-sex marriage debate, for instance. Arguments from analogy in such matters are almost always bad. (Yes, I realise the irony that I just made an argument from analogy myself.)
I'm not saying I disagree with Young Ireland and Ranger; in fact, I am inclined to agree. But I think Antaine's views are very important and should have better rebuttals than the argument from historical analogy.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Sept 4, 2015 22:46:41 GMT
My difficulty is with turning people away and sending them back to rape, violence and death on the basis that a minority of them may belong to ISIS (if they don't already, they can hardly be recruited since it is ISIS they are fleeing, no?) ISIS seem to be doing a good enough job of recruiting disaffected Westerners as it is.
I certainly agree that integration has been done very very badly across Europe before. But no reason not to try and do it in a better manner.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 5, 2015 7:52:10 GMT
I am not in favour of sending anybody back to rape, violence and death, either. The question is how and where refugees are given refuge.
I think it's a little naive to think that those fleeing ISIS (especially the young children) will be inoculated against their philosophy. I mean, just look at the London bombers and the other young extremists who throw in their lot with Islamic terrorism. How often are they people who have derived enormous benefits from their Western upbringing? Logic does not operate when it comes to such tribal allegiances. We have no idea how long ISIS or something worse will be in situ.
Having said all this, I should reiterate that I am not actually opposed to welcoming the refugees here and given the scale of the crisis it even seems like the most humane thing to do. I suppose I am simply alerted by all the familiar symptoms of 'groupthink' though, including the rhetoric of "how could anyone possibly disagree".... Yes, in such a grave situation, contrarianism is inappropriate, but I think it's always appropriate to ask: "Are we being carried away by hysteria"?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Sept 5, 2015 9:44:43 GMT
A fair point; sorry if I came across as being a little bit hysterical, it was not my intention. Generally I agree that countries have the right to enforce their own immigration laws; what problems we have here in Ireland are on account of the incredibly lax immigration policies of the 90s. One of the problems I believe this caused was a massive influx of criminals from other countries into Ireland because they realised that there were so few controls that they wouldn't have their background checked and could have a clean slate once they came in. This in turn became a problem for the Gards as they simply didn't have a clue as to who was who in the criminal underworld of say, Poland or China.
But in this instance I feel that the characterisation of the migrants in question as generally bad isn't very fair. Indeed, many of them are Christians fleeing religious persecution.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 5, 2015 10:15:54 GMT
Oh, I wasn't accusing you of hysteria, Ranger. I suppose I've been antagonised by the "how can anyone disagree?" type comments on Facebook, more than anything else. Similar to Antaine's reaction to the populism on Joe Duffy (I don't listen to radio).
I am more or less arguing devil's advocate here. The point that many of these refugees are Christians is well made. Really, I don't think there's ultimately any case to deny these refugees refuge in Ireland. The points Antaine raises are all very relevant, I think, but the seriousness of the situation and its scale (I think) override those concerns. Which is better-- to err on the side of charity or on hard-heartedness? Is there any case in history where a country caused more suffering by denying asylum seekers access than by granting it? Indeed, it's hard to think of ANY instance in history when humanitarianism turned out to be a mistake. I've been reading about the Nuremberg trials recently, and the post-war treatment of Nazi war criminals, and it seems to me that the stand of the Church-- for clemency and mercy towards what might be the most evil regime in history, and people who had done almost incomparably cruel acts-- shines out as the right thing to have done. (I agree it's far from a comparable example, but it's been on my mind.)
It does raise the question of precedent, which I think is also important.
|
|