|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 14, 2020 11:36:00 GMT
Recently I saw Mal bring up "Ireland for the Irish" (China for the Chinese, Poland for the Polish, etc.) in another conversation.
I'm interested to discuss peoples opinions about Ethno vs Civic Nationalism which I image the conversation will invoke.
I would have been more of a Civil Nationalist a few months ago but I am definitely been won over to the Ideals of some of our Irish Forefathers that believed that the Nation of Ireland (not the Freestate, Republic, NI.) is a Family and if a person wants to join the Irish family you have to marry into it, accept its Faith and Culture.
Love to hear other peoples opinions?
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 14, 2020 12:02:46 GMT
Recently I saw Mal bring "Ireland for the Irish" (China for the Chinese, Poland for the Polish, etc.) I'm interested to discuss peoples opinions about Ethno vs Civic Nationalism which I image the conversation will invoke. I would have been more of a Civil Nationalist a few months ago but I am definitely been won over to the Ideals of some of our Irish Forefathers that believed that the Nation of Ireland (not the Freestate, Republic, NI.) is a Family and if a person wants to join the Irish family you have to marry into it, accept its Faith and Culture. Love to hear other peoples opinions? It's an interesting topic Stephen. I have a few random thoughts. The recent influx of newcomers was not predicted nor admitted to by politicians. Those that did predict it were denounced as scaremongering racists. There was no mandate for the biggest population increase since the Ulster plantation. Figures of around 18% of the population being new Irish are disputed as this figure also includes the children of returned Irish. From my reading as a layman 1/3 of the "New Irish" are actual Irish stock. Still that leaves over one in ten as non Irish. That new population is not spread around equally despite the government's policy of housing refugees in particular, in all sorts of obscure and far flung areas were they often dramatically alter the demographic make up. A small rural area can see its population rise much greater than 12% or even 18%. I doubt well heeled affluent areas have seen a similar population shift. Many of the new comers do jobs Irish people won't do for a variety of reasons. Often these are paid at the minimum wage. This is true especially of tourist related jobs. Foreign Labour keeps the costs for employers down hence their enthusiasm for free movement. Health employs a lot of foreign staff at all levels.Also many Irish nurses and doctors go abroad . This is a structural problem that needs addressing by the Irish state. There is a similar problem in other European states. Rents are pushed up by immigrants at the lower level and the higher ie the Google and Apple expansions in Dublin.This is a major factor in homelessness. Free Movement does attract a certain percentage of welfare tourism . It is hard to get precise figures as this is of course racist. Free Movement is a big problem for a small state with relatively generous welfare states like Ireland. Long term it cannot last. As a first step Ireland should deny welfare to non citizens except as a short term emergency measure. Freedom of movement should be freedom to work. Ideally we should have work quota numbers in place of free movement. Finally this issue is almost 100% taboo in the mainstream media . |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 14, 2020 13:51:30 GMT
It's an interesting topic Stephen. I have a few random thoughts. The recent influx of newcomers was not predicted nor admitted to by politicians. Those that did predict it were denounced as scaremongering racists. There was no mandate for the biggest population increase since the Ulster plantation. Figures of around 18% of the population being new Irish are disputed as this figure also includes the children of returned Irish. From my reading as a layman 1/3 of the "New Irish" are actual Irish stock. Still that leaves over one in ten as non Irish. That new population is not spread around equally despite the government's policy of housing refugees in particular, in all sorts of obscure and far flung areas were they often dramatically alter the demographic make up. A small rural area can see its population rise much greater than 12% or even 18%. I doubt well heeled affluent areas have seen a similar population shift. Many of the new comers do jobs Irish people won't do for a variety of reasons. Often these are paid at the minimum wage. This is true especially of tourist related jobs. Foreign Labour keeps the costs for employers down hence their enthusiasm for free movement. Health employs a lot of foreign staff at all levels.Also many Irish nurses and doctors go abroad . This is a structural problem that needs addressing by the Irish state. There is a similar problem in other European states. Rents are pushed up by immigrants at the lower level and the higher ie the Google and Apple expansions in Dublin.This is a major factor in homelessness. Free Movement does attract a certain percentage of welfare tourism . It is hard to get precise figures as this is of course racist. Free Movement is a big problem for a small state with relatively generous welfare states like Ireland. Long term it cannot last. As a first step Ireland should deny welfare to non citizens except as a short term emergency measure. Freedom of movement should be freedom to work. Ideally we should have work quota numbers in place of free movement. Finally this issue is almost 100% taboo in the mainstream media . The figures you mentioned are defiantly alarming. The Irish in general are fast asleep, dreaming of bread and circuses. One thing I will say is a person is not Irish because they happen to have resided in Ireland for five years (New Irish) even if a State says so (the same State says Men are Woman and mutilates children). That statement does not take away from the dignity of the fine Brazilians, Italians, Polish, etc that have moved over for a better life. It just means they are not part of the Irish Nation unless they marry in (The Next-generation probably will be) and accept the cultural / Religious traditions of Ireland. It is a 100% taboo/Censored in the mainstream media as the Irish media is one of the most corrupt in the western world. They do not want a resurgent of Nationalism and Patriotism as they are bought and sold Liberals/Materialists. I would be interested in how people designate a person being Irish and is this important? |
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Feb 15, 2020 0:01:05 GMT
Glad to see "Ireland for the Irish" being discussed. I've been thinking about how it might not be compatible with Catholicism and trying to understand that. Maybe I'm missing the point - because order and discipline and boundaries seem Catholic to me, including borders. We wouldn't claim that other countries don't have the right to govern their national territories and shouldn't be responsible for their own citizens. I think the Vatican City has a border. I think migration is a policy matter and in the same way we wouldn't blame a social welfare officer for determining a claim against an applicant there has to be room to say it's ok to put a hold on immigration (in the national interest). Supply and demand is basic economics but there's a big reluctance to discuss the demand (for housing, health etc) side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 15, 2020 9:04:10 GMT
I was recently reading through the addresses of the last three Popes on World Migration Day, available on the Vatican website. I found them very difficult to square with the kind of immigration policy that "Ireland for the Irish" demands, and that I would prefer myself.
I realize there is a whole other argument about infallibility, authoritativeness, etc. This is just my reading, perhaps I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Feb 15, 2020 11:11:05 GMT
There's a lot of reading there - I just had a look at Pope Benedict's message from 2013. I think both the slogan and the messages are open to interpretation. I'd like more concrete advice or teaching on how to get conversions to the Catholic faith or at least to hear it addressed. Maybe it is happening around the country.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Feb 15, 2020 11:53:16 GMT
I was recently reading through the addresses of the last three Popes on World Migration Day, available on the Vatican website. I found them very difficult to square with the kind of immigration policy that "Ireland for the Irish" demands, and that I would prefer myself. I realize there is a whole other argument about infallibility, authoritativeness, etc. This is just my reading, perhaps I am wrong. Unfortunately one of the most confusing aspects of modern Catholicism has been the absolute explosion in papal books , interviews , exhortations , statements , addresses etc etc. Many documents "written" by the pope come from some nameless bureaucrat composed for some occasion and then vanish unlamented. Conservative Catholics often take any statement from the Vatican as somehow blessed by the charisma of infallibility. Every word in some obscure Roman text is seen as somehow inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Petrine promise . The curse of Ultramontane theology lives on deep in the hearts of many loyal catholics. The popes views on politics are as infallible as Leo Varadkars. He is entitled to a view but he should be careful about imposing that view on the wider church. Outside of broad principles about justice we need to be careful about baptising prudential policies and branding them as catholic doctrine. Back in the repressive 1950s it was accepted there was a wide latitude granted to Catholics in the political sphere as long as the fundamental rights of the church were respected. The church today often speaks like an all knowing NGO and expands its "teachings" into all sorts of areas where it has no business going. Maybe she feels more relevant in sending off press releases or statements. There are more important things to read and life is short. I suspect if I am lucky enough to get into purgatory I will have to read all the church statements of the last 60 years and translate them into biblical Hebrew before I get into the mansions of paradise. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 17, 2020 9:43:58 GMT
I was recently reading through the addresses of the last three Popes on World Migration Day, available on the Vatican website. I found them very difficult to square with the kind of immigration policy that "Ireland for the Irish" demands, and that I would prefer myself. I realize there is a whole other argument about infallibility, authoritativeness, etc. This is just my reading, perhaps I am wrong. I think the first mistake people make is looking at politicised speeches made by the Vatican and believing they are infallible! Many of these can be very fluffy, Liberal, opinionated and in some cases break with Tradition. I think the interested reader would be better reading the encyclicals and councils of the Church (Not just the last 60 years and remember Vatican 2 pastoral). Some examples Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII 1891 Providentissimus Deus, Leo XIII 1893 Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pius X 1907 Casti Connubii, Pius XI 1930: Next question I pose is why the statement "Ireland for the Irish" would not align with Catholicism? All Charity starts at the Home. The Irish Nation is a large extended Family and should be protected first. The King (Taoiseach) and leadership should act like fathers of the Nation. How the Duties of a Father can be used for a Leader. The first duty of a leader towards their subjects is to love and protect them from harm. The leader who is idle so that his country is left without fitting maintenance is guilty of grievous sin. Leaders must see that their subjects obtain sound education. They are bound with special emphasis to watch over the spiritual welfare of their subjects, to afford them good example, and to correct the erring. Love to hear other peoples opinions on my above musings? |
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Feb 17, 2020 13:31:03 GMT
Here's some data on ethnicity from the 2016 Irish census. 'White Irish' represents 82.2%.
This was followed by “Any other White background” (9.5%), which, I assume would be mostly EU nationals?
There are another 2.6% who didn't give an answer. It is worth noting that people with a White Irish background were generally
older than other ethnic groups.
In the England and Wales census of 2011, 'White British' was 80.5% with about another 5% 'Other White'
Of course things will have changed in Ireland since 2016 and In England and Wales since 2011.
Further breakdown of 2016 Irish census:
All ethnic or cultural backgrounds 4,689,921
White Irish 3,854,226
White Irish Traveller 30,987
Any other White background 446,727
Black or Black Irish - African 57,850
Black or Black Irish - any other Black background 6,789
Asian or Asian Irish - Chinese 19,447
Asian or Asian Irish - any other Asian background 79,273
Other including mixed background 70,603
Not stated 124,019
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 17, 2020 14:10:30 GMT
Here's some data on ethnicity from the 2016 Irish census. 'White Irish' represents 82.2%. This was followed by “Any other White background” (9.5%), which, I assume would be mostly EU nationals? There are another 2.6% who didn't give an answer. It is worth noting that people with a White Irish background were generally older than other ethnic groups. In the England and Wales census of 2011, 'White British' was 80.5% with about another 5% 'Other White' Of course things will have changed in Ireland since 2016 and In England and Wales since 2011. Further breakdown of 2016 Irish census: All ethnic or cultural backgrounds 4,689,921 White Irish 3,854,226 White Irish Traveller 30,987 Any other White background 446,727 Black or Black Irish - African 57,850 Black or Black Irish - any other Black background 6,789 Asian or Asian Irish - Chinese 19,447 Asian or Asian Irish - any other Asian background 79,273 Other including mixed background 70,603 Not stated 124,019 Interesting data and thanks for sharing I completely reject the Idea i am "White Irish". I am Catholic Irish and the other Europeans should be classed as Polish, latvian, Russian, etc. Don't fall into the trap of being a White guy like so many Americans do! |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Feb 17, 2020 14:55:42 GMT
Here's some data on ethnicity from the 2016 Irish census. 'White Irish' represents 82.2%. This was followed by “Any other White background” (9.5%), which, I assume would be mostly EU nationals? There are another 2.6% who didn't give an answer. It is worth noting that people with a White Irish background were generally older than other ethnic groups. In the England and Wales census of 2011, 'White British' was 80.5% with about another 5% 'Other White' Of course things will have changed in Ireland since 2016 and In England and Wales since 2011. Further breakdown of 2016 Irish census: All ethnic or cultural backgrounds 4,689,921 White Irish 3,854,226 White Irish Traveller 30,987 Any other White background 446,727 Black or Black Irish - African 57,850 Black or Black Irish - any other Black background 6,789 Asian or Asian Irish - Chinese 19,447 Asian or Asian Irish - any other Asian background 79,273 Other including mixed background 70,603 Not stated 124,019 Interesting data and thanks for sharing I completely reject the Idea i am "White Irish". I am Catholic Irish and the other Europeans should be classed as Polish, Liernianian, Russian, etc. Don't fall into the trap of being a White guy like so many Americans do! I am white but that fact means nothing to me. I might as well be defined by my shoe size. |
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Feb 17, 2020 18:11:24 GMT
Interesting data and thanks for sharing I completely reject the Idea i am "White Irish". I am Catholic Irish and the other Europeans should be classed as Polish, Liernianian, Russian, etc. Don't fall into the trap of being a White guy like so many Americans do! I am white but that fact means nothing to me. I might as well be defined by my shoe size. It's not my definition, I'm just reporting the categories of the census! |
|
|
|
Post by optatuscleary on Feb 17, 2020 19:03:33 GMT
Here's some data on ethnicity from the 2016 Irish census. 'White Irish' represents 82.2%. This was followed by “Any other White background” (9.5%), which, I assume would be mostly EU nationals? There are another 2.6% who didn't give an answer. It is worth noting that people with a White Irish background were generally older than other ethnic groups. In the England and Wales census of 2011, 'White British' was 80.5% with about another 5% 'Other White' Of course things will have changed in Ireland since 2016 and In England and Wales since 2011. Further breakdown of 2016 Irish census: All ethnic or cultural backgrounds 4,689,921 White Irish 3,854,226 White Irish Traveller 30,987 Any other White background 446,727 Black or Black Irish - African 57,850 Black or Black Irish - any other Black background 6,789 Asian or Asian Irish - Chinese 19,447 Asian or Asian Irish - any other Asian background 79,273 Other including mixed background 70,603 Not stated 124,019 Interesting data and thanks for sharing I completely reject the Idea i am "White Irish". I am Catholic Irish and the other Europeans should be classed as Polish, latvian, Russian, etc. Don't fall into the trap of being a White guy like so many Americans do! Where I live (California) white is sometimes used by less educated people to mean something like “white - not otherwise specified.” Thus I heard a white American girl describe herself as “half Mexican, a quarter Swedish, and a quarter white.” My students will often claim that I’m not white because I know where my ancestors are from (white apparently connoting bland nondescript ancestry.) |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Feb 17, 2020 22:13:13 GMT
I am white but that fact means nothing to me. I might as well be defined by my shoe size. It's not my definition, I'm just reporting the categories of the census! I understand your just the messenger. Just wanted to highlight my distaste at being called white! |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Feb 18, 2020 2:51:44 GMT
I was recently reading through the addresses of the last three Popes on World Migration Day, available on the Vatican website. I found them very difficult to square with the kind of immigration policy that "Ireland for the Irish" demands, and that I would prefer myself. I realize there is a whole other argument about infallibility, authoritativeness, etc. This is just my reading, perhaps I am wrong. I think the first mistake people make is looking at politicised speeches made by the Vatican and believing they are infallible! Many of these can be very fluffy, Liberal, opinionated and in some cases break with Tradition. I think the interested reader would be better reading the encyclicals and councils of the Church (Not just the last 60 years and remember Vatican 2 pastoral). Some examples Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII 1891 Providentissimus Deus, Leo XIII 1893 Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pius X 1907 Casti Connubii, Pius XI 1930: Next question I pose is why the statement "Ireland for the Irish" would not align with Catholicism? All Charity starts at the Home. The Irish Nation is a large extended Family and should be protected first. The King (Taoiseach) and leadership should act like fathers of the Nation. How the Duties of a Father can be used for a Leader. The first duty of a leader towards their subjects is to love and protect them from harm. The leader who is idle so that his country is left without fitting maintenance is guilty of grievous sin. Leaders must see that their subjects obtain sound education. They are bound with special emphasis to watch over the spiritual welfare of their subjects, to afford them good example, and to correct the erring. Love to hear other peoples opinions on my above musings? The multiplicity of recorded papal statements,documents,sermons,interviews etc, in modern times would make complete and total Divine inspiration rather impossible, but I think it would be just as impossible to disregard all postVaticanII documents as uninspired; that would leave questions over even HumanæVitæ and VeritatisSplendor. Obviously, when it comes to immigration and other social or political teachings, however, the goal posts can change rapidly, very rapidly these days, even if the thrust of the teaching didn't. Even Christ hinted at this during his discourse on divorce. |
|
