Printable View
****ing hilarious Brendy. And you know enough "yanks" well to have formed an in-depth opinion of them all, non? I didn't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
I bet you used to pull the wings off flies and the legs from spiders when you were a kid. Just for the craic, like. :rolleyes:
:ball: PP
Sorry PP, but I've no time for yanks. Been over there twice, met plenty of them over here. It's when ye get asked questions like "do you have running water/electricity?" "do you have a horse and cart?", or worst of all, after saying that I'm leaving in a few days, a yank goes "are you driving back?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy
I give up on that country. :confused:
never been asked that myself in the US. Maybe they just know how easily you get wound up and do it to p|ss you offQuote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
If so, americans... I salute you
What part of the country were you in?Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
Was just over there the other week & only funny incident i remember was a yankie tourist in NY thinking a squirrel was a rabbit. :eek: :D
There is nearly 2.5 billion people living in China and IndiaQuote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
and I'm sure most of them if given a chance would like to live in Ireland
Is it your attitude to let them all in, I'm sure as your so nice you'll let a
few live with you.
Ireland should have a managed migration policy such as the one practiced by Australia, bring in required skilled workers and help them integrate.
Opinion: John Waters
'There is very little racism in Ireland ... There is, yes, some public concern about the drift of public policy on immigration and asylum seekers, but this is mainly down to fear of the unknown, and will not translate into support for the change ... The referendum will be roundly defeated, and the reasons should be obvious to anyone who has lived here for more than a year or two."
That's what I wrote about the citizenship referendum less than two months ago. I concluded: "The amendment, if it goes ahead at all, will be defeated three to one." If there was, as I once proposed, a league table for political forecasters, I would now be in the relegation zone. I could hardly have been more wrong on the result. But was I wrong, too, about the reasons behind it? Frankly, it doesn't matter how we intended it - it reads as a clear statement of unwelcome for those who come here in search of a better life.
Racism is just a word, one that has been grossly misused in a manner that has closed down the kind of discussion we needed to avoid precisely what has now occurred. Until last Friday, we were entitled to plead innocent to charges of xenophobia, but this result has given a concrete reality to what previously was no more than a ragbag of unaddressed sentiments. Now we can be presumed guilty until we prove ourselves innocent.
This amendment was, in political terms, so skilfully couched that it provided for deniability in respect of the motivation for supporting it. The genius of its construction was that it allowed its sponsors and supporters to plead that the issue was merely a little technocratic housekeeping in relation to a citizenship loophole. In reality, it was a divining rod in search of a malign political sentiment as destructive to those who harbour it as those against whom it is directed.
Over the course of the campaign, I wrote several columns opposing the amendment from a variety of perspectives - technical, ethical and political. Last week I met a man who told me: "You're missing the point. This is about keeping the ******* out." If he was right, we have many serious matters to consider.
For more than a generation, we've been engaged in a process described by its political sponsors as "modernisation". It included not merely economic development and changes in social mores, but, more fundamentally, an opening up to the wider world of European integration and transnational industrialisation.
This was always going to be a process of give and take. Unfortunately, the sponsors tended to emphasise the "take" aspects and dismiss questions about the "give" dimension as insularity or backwardness. The result is that the Irish people came to believe in the free lunch, and have lately become outraged to find themselves presented with a bill.
The relatively sudden transformation of Irish streets into minor melting pots, in which a multiplicity of skin colours and tongues has made manifest the reality of what "modernisation" actually means has greatly discomfited a large segment of the Irish public. It appears, moreover, that little distinction is being made between those who come to Ireland as economic migrants from what are now our partner states in the EU and those who come from outside as immigrants or asylum-seekers.
The subtext of this amendment was that we can have the bullfight and the bull home, that we can participate in the economic and cultural benefits of the world and not give anything back. In terms of the reality of where we are, the statement we have made is as useful as standing on Streedagh strand instructing the Atlantic to turn back.
In this there has been a monstrous abdication of leadership, of the responsibility to tell us that keeping the crock of gold meant honouring the rainbow. The same politicians who sold us, slice by slice, the salami of multinational dependency now seek to exploit the residual sentiment relating to a version of national autonomy they knew was being sold down the river.
There will be many collateral consequences of Friday's vote, not all of them bad.
One is that we can reasonably expect not to have to endure any more preaching from Michael McDowell about pluralism and inclusiveness.
Another is that the Catholic clergy must delve into its collective imagination in search of new material for Christmas sermons, the standard lecture about the wickedness of the innkeeper who turned away the Holy Family having been rendered redundant by the disgraceful fence-sitting of the Catholic hierarchy in this campaign.
A third is that Ireland can hope never again to become poor and have to send its children out into the world in search of livelihoods or opportunities.
Certainly, we have provided ourselves with a massive incentive to ensure such a fate never again befalls us. For now we have established a benchmark for the way we can expect our children to be treated if it does.
© The Irish Times
THEY would like to live in Ireland? As someone who has emigrated, you should surely know that few would do it through choice. My parents, given the option would never have left either of their respective countries, met and produced such a handsome specimen as myself. People don't want to emigrate no more than a child abused by his/her parent wants another father/mother. They want the same ones but without the deficiencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Condex
Unfortunately not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Massachusetts and California. I think they're worse in the west. Plus, they're completely ignorant of the fact that they drive SUVs when they don't need them. Global warming means nothing to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
There must be a massive American community in Cork then....Quote:
Originally Posted by brendy_éire
I work with a few non-nationals. Good people who work hard and contribute to the economic growth of this country. They're disgusted that any kid they have here would not have the same social rights as my son does.
But that's what we voted for. I'm so proud.
I got a little further but the middle is a blur... :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by patsh
In fairness, the kid would have the same social rights. He just couldn't become an Irish citizen until he's five...Quote:
Originally Posted by liamon
Which is better than France where he has to make a choice (ie. give his old citizenship up) when he's eighteen. Again is the application process for Irish citizenship being taken away or transformed into a German style blood only citizenship (good athletes and footballers naturally exempted of course)? If kids born in Ireland of foreign parents can still apply for Irish citizenship under residency rules at least then where's the discrimination and racism the weed-smokers are on about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I think the point several reasonable people made that this referendum result ow opens the doo for politicians to do what they like now. There's nopthing stopping the FF/PD government passing legislation making the citizenship by naturalisation period 15 years now (likewise succesive governments...)
My main problem wasn't with the idea behind this referendum (i.e. limiting citizenship) BUT I don't like it being at the whim of political parties
The right to an Irish passport for starters.
What they do/don't miss isn't the point. It's viewed as a very xenophobic move by foreign nationals. Then again, when the governemnt endorses fear and anger towards foreigners, it's to be expected. :(
As I know that last point is going to be picked up - my argument is that this referendum was proposed because of the fear that our maternity hospitals would be overrun by foreigners. Despite the doctors stating that this wasn't a problem, it was none the less the driving force behind the campaign to get a yes vote.
A very good point and that is the danger of such an ambiguous change in teh constitution. Hopefully as many of the TDs were against this vote they will at least see that fair legislation is approved and that this will only curtail 'citizenship tourism' and not the legal immigrants and their children who want to join the Irish nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
But not the right to travel, nor to citizenship of their parents' country(ies).Quote:
Originally Posted by liamon
If the irish people disagree with that they will not re-elect them to office. Thats how democracy works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
No, parties are voted on on a huge variety of issues (Sinn Fein excepted obviously) I'm not sayng it will happen, I just don't like the idea that its possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
(laughably nonsensical) Very good, your not comparing like with like,Quote:
Originally Posted by Conor74
I sure your new home will be your castle, but its natural for people to be territorial unless you live in a commune which few people do.
Are you advocating an open-door policy because if you are take a look at London, this is a city where peoples sense of community and identity lies with there country of origin rather than the host country, this causes resentment in the host population. Some of these people do not want to integrate but instead want to live separate lives in their own communities.
Is this the kind of mutli-cultural society you want for Ireland, because once
this policy is set in train there is no way in the future to ask anyone to leave
Trevor Phillips of the CRE(Commission for Racial Equality) is telling us that
multiculturalism is a discredited idea, and that integration is the way forard.
The amount of immigrants Ireland gets is Tiny. Indians are free to travel (india is a democracy) if they want to. the reason you see hardly any indians living in ireland is simply because the vast majority DONT want to live here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Condex