According to Michael O'Keefe...
-
Just to add a little perspective - despite recent increases, roughly 1% of Ireland is Muslim, which is roughly the same percentage as the number of native-born Irish living in England, and somewhat less than the number of Brits living in Ireland.
-
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
No. TBH, I don't have a clue who Michael O'Keefe is.
But I agree with what the guy wrote.
It's also worth noting that historically and for good or ill, the British have done more to change the traditional Irish way of life than any Muslim.
-
Good thing he didn't specify only Muslims, isn't it?
-
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Good thing he didn't specify only Muslims, isn't it?
OK, he didn't actually come out and say 'non-whites', although clearly the implication was there. I'm not sure that actually makes it any better.
Interestingly enough, somebody is claiming he's not actually Irish, but a Brit. Which if true would be very, very funny.
-
Yes, O'Keefe is a common British name...
-
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Yes, O'Keefe is a common British name...
More common than Badenoch or Sunak, the last two leaders of that most English of institutions, The Conservate Party.
-
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
-
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
I was only joking
-
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
@Doctor-Phibes said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
A homogeneous population is not the take-away. He's bemoaning the loss of what makes Ireland culture unique. That's what happens when the influx of immigrants is too large and too fast to assimilate.
-
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
@Doctor-Phibes said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
You had the curries already in 1990.
England got better after that with EU immigration and much, much worse with middle eastern and south Asian migration. By which I mean Islamic immigration.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
@Jolly said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
Are you now going to posit that a massive influx of foreigners has been good for England? Both economically and socially?
No, there's currently clearly a problem with immigration. However, it's also not all bad by any means. Britain today is a much more vibrant, colourful and interesting place than it was in the 1950's.
The idea that a completely homogeneous population is better, as this guy seems to be implying, is simply not true. As with most things, moderation is a good idea.
You had the curries already in 1990.
England got better after that with EU immigration and much, much worse with middle eastern and south Asian migration. By which I mean Islamic immigration.
@jon-nyc said in According to Michael O'Keefe...:
You had the curries already in 1990.
England got better after that with EU immigration and much, much worse with middle eastern and south Asian migration. By which I mean Islamic immigration.
It's ironic that Brexit was sold as a solution to the immigration from Europe, which I agree improved the country no end. What's happened since then is definitely problematic, and the points based system that was introduced seems to have increased the number of immigrants, which presumably wasn't its intent.
