# The term "Non National"



## Guest124 (18 Nov 2007)

_Mod Note: split from Dublin Bus Strike thread by ajapa_le

Alot of the workers in the Union are non national -should they go back home if they go on strike?


----------



## RainyDay (18 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*



BroadbandKen said:


> Alot of the workers in the Union are non national -should they go back home if they go on strike?



What does non-national mean? I've never met anyone with no nationality. But perhaps you can clarify if you are proposing that workers from some countries should be treated differently?


----------



## z105 (18 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*



> What does non-national mean? I've never met anyone with no nationality


 
Non-national means not from this nation, it doesn't mean they don't have a nationality


----------



## RainyDay (18 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*



Havealaugh said:


> Non-national means not from this nation, it doesn't mean they don't have a nationality



Surely the correct term would be 'non-Irish national' then? Non-national is just plain misleading.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*



RainyDay said:


> What does non-national mean? I've never met anyone with no nationality. But perhaps you can clarify if you are proposing that workers from some countries should be treated differently?



Rainyday I have noticed you like to ask rhetorical questions while assuming we all know what you are getting up to. I would be amazed if someone as opinionated as yourself did not know what 'non national' meant.

Lets get back to the issue of the bus strike: Arent these the same drivers who have refused for years to open the middle doors of the buses ? My heart is breaking for them. Pushing a button a few times is so much to ask, isnt it ?


----------



## RainyDay (19 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*



stir crazy said:


> Rainyday I have noticed you like to ask rhetorical questions while assuming we all know what you are getting up to. I would be amazed if someone as opinionated as yourself did not know what 'non national' meant.


Do I really ask lots of rhetorical questions? I guess that most posters will have picked up the fact that I was highlighting the offensive and inaccurate nature of the term 'non-national', which has regrettably drifted into common usage.


----------



## room305 (19 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*



RainyDay said:


> Do I really ask lots of rhetorical questions? I guess that most posters will have picked up the fact that I was highlighting the offensive and inaccurate nature of the term 'non-national', which has regrettably drifted into common usage.



I'll never understand how the term became popular as it makes so little sense. To my mind it conjures up an image of an incredibly parochial Ireland, with a sort of implicit assumption that "if you're not from here, you're from nowhere". Nor does it ever seem to be applied to individuals from the UK or the US.


----------



## Purple (19 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*



RainyDay said:


> I guess that most posters will have picked up the fact that I was highlighting the offensive and inaccurate nature of the term 'non-national', which has regrettably drifted into common usage.



In fairness I have heard loads of people, from all walks of life use that term. 
I even heard a friend of mine use it and he is a solicitor and a card carrying member of the Labour Party (typical job for an Irish socialist) so if he can pass the moral purity standards test for those two illustrious groups then "non-national" can't be that bad a phrase


----------



## stir crazy (19 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*

I am a national of the Irish Republic and have no problem being described as a non national of any country in which I happen to be a guest and not a citizen. Why ? Because it would be the honest truth and it is a statement of fact.  I think some people take political correctness way too far.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Nov 2007)

Why would you describe non [Irish] nationals as 'guests'?


----------



## ninsaga (19 Nov 2007)

Lets use the term Johnny-Foreigner instead....

'Two men arrested at Dublin airport tonight for carrying 10kgs of cocaine - they were both Johnny-Foreigners"...... yep....would make the news sound more amusing if anything@


----------



## ajapale (19 Nov 2007)

Whats wrong with the term Foreigner?


----------



## room305 (19 Nov 2007)

stir crazy said:


> I am a national of the Irish Republic and have no problem being described as a non national of any country in which I happen to be a guest and not a citizen. Why ? Because it would be the honest truth and it is a statement of fact.  I think some people take political correctness way too far.



How can you be a "non national" of a particular country? If you described someone as being "non religious" people would assume you were (rather awkwardly) describing someone who didn't ascribe to any religion rather than someone who had a different religion to your own.



ajapale said:


> Whats wrong with the term Foreigner?



I've no idea but people seem to have an aversion to saying it. "Foreign national" is a more intuitive and accurate phrase than "non national" to my mind.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> a "non national" of


 
The following is all you need to know 

http://www.tfd.com/of

http://www.tfd.com/national


Its' harmless in my view. Does somebody find it offensive ? I am completely surprised by this but I guess theres always a few in every audience.
This kind of [ 'manhole cover' should be 'womanhole cover'] nonsense destroys the credibility of the person who protests against it . To me its merely finding a problem for the sake of it and not identifying real issues whatever they may be. 

If the OP of this split thread has a problem with racism or xenophobia I would think a more credible behaviour would be to start a thread about this and be direct and honest about the issue instead of suddenly imposing a burden of guilt on all the people who have used the term without double meanings or sinister implications. Or is it just another excuse to make Irish nationals feel guilty and wrong about themselves ? 

Just my opinion. People of different nationalities have used the term non national in my presence. I think this one is a dead end. And no I wasnt pious enough to use a rhetorical question. 



RainyDay said:


> Why would you describe non [Irish] nationals as 'guests'?


 
And I cant believe that for years we have treated tourists as welcome *guests* in our country and given ourselves a reputation for hospitalty abroad for someone to turn around and have a problem with that word too 

If things continue along that path, It starts off with word police then it becomes thought police. And its' irrelevant and obstructive to any discussion as long as people understand one another. Just my opinion. I look forward to responses.


----------



## Graham_07 (20 Nov 2007)

stir crazy said:


> And I cant believe that for years we have treated tourists as welcome *guests* in our country and given ourselves a reputation for hospitalty abroad for someone to turn around and have a problem with that word too


 
As long as we don't call them "Guests of the Nation"


----------



## AlastairSC (20 Nov 2007)

What was wrong with Paddys, Britts, Jocks, Frogs, Eyeties, Wops, Dagoes, Chinks, Nips, Yanks, etc? 

 At least you knew what country they were a non-national of.


----------



## ninsaga (20 Nov 2007)

Dagoes my first love... with a guy I use to call my friend (showing my age now)


----------



## redstar (20 Nov 2007)

Why not use the American term for non-nationals : "Aliens".  At least then we could refer to all life in the universe who are not Irish


----------



## purpeller (20 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> "Foreign national" is a more intuitive and accurate phrase than "non national" to my mind.



Have to agree with that statement.  The immigrants who come here are nationals of another country, whether they remain friendly towards said country or otherwise.  They are not non anything!  If the media wants to use a catch all phrase "foreign national" is polite and clear.


----------



## cole (20 Nov 2007)

How about "international".


----------



## ninsaga (20 Nov 2007)

What's the big deal actually - does anyone know a non-national who actually takes offense at being called non-national. Let them get over it - it is not an offensive or derogatory term & not meant to be. It is a description of a persons nationality relative to the country that they are actually in. Big bloody deal....


----------



## diarmuidc (20 Nov 2007)

ninsaga said:


> What's the big deal actually -


It's not an accurate term...


----------



## room305 (20 Nov 2007)

ninsaga said:


> What's the big deal actually - does anyone know a non-national who actually takes offense at being called non-national. Let them get over it - it is not an offensive or derogatory term & not meant to be.



Yes, although "offence" is probably too strong a word. Puzzlement is probably better.



ninsaga said:


> It is a description of a persons nationality relative to the country that they are actually in. Big bloody deal....



Only it isn't. Nobody uses the prefix "non" to describe something that is different, it is always used to negate the word it is in front of.



> Main Entry: *non-*
> Function: _prefix_
> *:* not *:* other than *:* reverse of *:* absence of


If people wanted a term to describe "a persons [sic] nationality relative to the country that they are actually in" they would use a term like "foreign national" or the rather more cumbersome "different national". If they wanted to describe a person as not having a nationality they would probably employ the term "non national".


----------



## michaelm (20 Nov 2007)

*Re: Opinions on Dublin Bus strike*



RainyDay said:


> . . I was highlighting the offensive and inaccurate nature of the term 'non-national', which has regrettably drifted into common usage.


This is plain silly.  There's nothing offensive about the term, it's simply Hiberno-English for 'non-Irish national'.


----------



## ninsaga (20 Nov 2007)

..... but it is not a big deal..... however it is being made out to be a big deal.... life goes on.... there are bigger things to be concerned about.


----------



## redstar (20 Nov 2007)

I wonder if Dubs could refer to non-Dubs as 'non-counties'


----------



## MrMan (20 Nov 2007)

> I wonder if Dubs could refer to non-Dubs as 'non-counties'



No, they use the term culchies, why don't we debate the level of offense that all us country folk take to such a hard hitting word, it's almost as bad as being labelled a non-national.


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> Only it isn't. Nobody uses the prefix "non" to describe something that is different, it is always used to negate the word it is in front of.



What about "non-resident"? Everyone has to reside somewhere...


----------



## annR (20 Nov 2007)

My vote's with foreign national.


----------



## GeneralZod (20 Nov 2007)

If I went abroad only to visit a country I'd have no problem with being called a foreigner as that's what I'd be.

If I was foreign and came to Ireland with the intention of staying and was trying to integrate I'd probably prefer not to be called a foreigner.

In that case I'd prefer immigrant or recent immigrant up until the point when I was a naturalised citizen or just Irish.

The phrase non-national is too PC sounding.


----------



## Caveat (20 Nov 2007)

I propose the acronym _NAROONS_

(Newly Arrived Residents Of Other Nations)


----------



## GeneralZod (20 Nov 2007)

Caveat said:


> I propose the acronym _NAROONS_
> 
> (Newly Arrived Residents Of Other Nations)



Shouldn't that be 

NAF-ROONS  Newly Arrived Former Residents Of Other NationS.

Or 

NARFONS    Newly Arrived Residents From Other NationS.


----------



## ninsaga (20 Nov 2007)

JOFORs ...... JOhnny FOReignerS


----------



## RainyDay (20 Nov 2007)

stir crazy said:


> And I cant believe that for years we have treated tourists as welcome *guests* in our country and given ourselves a reputation for hospitalty abroad for someone to turn around and have a problem with that word too


The problem with using the word 'guest' for someone who lives here is
1) It is not accurate
2) It implies a temporary visit


----------



## Thirsty (21 Nov 2007)

I propose _new Irish  _


----------



## ubiquitous (21 Nov 2007)

Kildrought said:


> I propose _new Irish  _



 Yeah, the term _new British_ would have been very popular on Kilburn High Street around 1986...


----------



## Gordanus (21 Nov 2007)

To repeat a previous poster, whats wrong with 'foreigners'?  That's what they were before 'non-national' suddenly came into vogue........ Was there something pejorative about 'foreigners' that I missed?


----------



## stir crazy (22 Nov 2007)

I think its possibly a sign of low self esteem or being excessively judgemental (judging others for use of such normal language) to have a problem with any factual description. Language is meaning dependent, full of quirks everywhere and isnt machine code.  
Does anyone seriously expect a foreigner/non national etc  to lie about this fact ? Most of them are proud of where they came from. Honesty and reality is the way to go.
There also seems to be  a problem with being proud of ones identity in some posts. Whats wrong with being part of an Irish nation ? As far as I am aware , to become part of the nation you need citizenship or be entitled to such and until you obtain citizenship you are a guest of the nation. I really dont see the problem with being foreign or being a guest. We can be pedantic and use citizen and non citizen, maybe thats the best way forward but whos to say the guy with the foreign accent is not a citizen.
Do people who have a problem with words like foreign or guest really have a problem with foreigners or guests so much that they cant handle the concept of somebody being foreign or a guest  ? It irks me when during a apparently innocent post , someone diverts the issue away to one of language used without giving any substantial example other than speculation of how this is a problem.  In any dealings with non citizens (this term seems least likely to offend all but citizens with foreign accents), I would hope to discover that persons name and use that.  If you ask me this pc lark can be a huge waste of time. You are what you are and thats never gonna change. Treat others as you expect to be treated but dont compromise the truth.


----------



## z105 (22 Nov 2007)

Rainyday


> Surely the correct term would be 'non-Irish national' then? Non-national is just plain misleading.


 
OP's location is Dublin (Broadbandken) so by him using the term Non-National I know he is talking about a person not from THIS nation i.e. Ireland. 

I guess it could be considered misleading if we didn't know where the OP was from.


----------



## Superman (22 Nov 2007)

Gordanus said:


> That's what they were before 'non-national' suddenly came into vogue........ Was there something pejorative about 'foreigners' that I missed?


I think non-national comes from old legislation from the 30's - which is how it slipped into usage (i.e. court cases involving "non-national" get reported in Newspapers; word gets to be the commonly used moniker applied by journalists etc.).


----------



## RainyDay (22 Nov 2007)

Havealaugh said:


> Rainyday
> 
> 
> OP's location is Dublin (Broadbandken) so by him using the term Non-National I know he is talking about a person not from THIS nation i.e. Ireland.
> ...



Unless your all-important THIS gets included in the term (e.g. non-THIS-nationality), it is still completely misleading.



stir crazy said:


> I think its possibly a sign of low self esteem or being excessively judgemental (judging others for use of such normal language) to have a problem with any factual description. Language is meaning dependent, full of quirks everywhere and isnt machine code.


The problem is that non-national is NOT a factual description. I don't know anyone who does not have a nationality.


stir crazy said:


> Do people who have a problem with words like foreign or guest really have a problem with foreigners or guests so much that they cant handle the concept of somebody being foreign or a guest  ? It irks me when during a apparently innocent post , someone diverts the issue away to one of language used without giving any substantial example other than speculation of how this is a problem.


Using the word 'guest' for someone who lives and works here is at best misleading and at worst dangerous. It implies temporary residence. It implies being under an obligation to or control of someone else. It implies a lack of independence.


----------



## stir crazy (23 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> What does non-national mean? I've never met anyone with no nationality. But perhaps you can clarify if you are proposing that workers from some countries should be treated differently?



I find your posts to be misleading, for example pretending you dont know what 'non national' means. In this way, you have highlighted nothing else but your own prejudices and biased assumptions.




RainyDay said:


> The problem is that non-national is NOT a factual description. I don't know anyone who does not have a nationality.



Again you refuse to accept how the phrase is used. It is used with the word 'of' as I have explained earlier in this thread or like all words given meaning within context. Its'  meaningless to take any word out of context. You are doing the equivalent of taking the word 'the' or 'a' without any other words attached. 





RainyDay said:


> Using the word 'guest' for someone who lives and works here is at best misleading and at worst dangerous. It implies temporary residence. It implies being under an obligation to or control of someone else. It implies a lack of independence.



Very few people in this state are not under an obligation to someone else. Most of us are under various obligations to our employers, to pay taxes, to our families,  and perhaps the community and wider society and of course all of are obligated to obey the law.
Foreign workers are always free to return to their original homes if they so wish and they freely choose to come here so I dont see how anyone who is invited to this country lacks independence or freedom. Whenever I have lived and worked abroad I have seen myself as a guest in a country with a different culture to my own and understood that citizenship and residency is not a right but a privilege to thankful for. I have never felt that I had a right to dictate to my host country the terms under which I have been invited whether this was in the EU or in the USA. I have always been conscious of the desire to be a well behaved guest and give a good impression of Irish people abroad. I have no problem with being described as a guest anywhere I go. A guest is by definition invited to the party and is actually someone who is desired unlike someone who might have been born at the party who nobody choose to be there.

Yet again you continue to highlight your own prejudices and biased assumptions assuming that half a sentence informs us about your whole prayerbook. It is up to the individual to imply something  if they so wish based upon their own beliefs or are you using this thread to establish your ' immigration credentials' in some way ?


----------



## ClubMan (23 Nov 2007)

A _Russian _friend of mone arrived here to work (with me) c. 2000 and thought it was hilarious when he queued up at _Harcourt Street _to receive his papers which described him as an "alien". I was thinking _The Third Man _and _Casablanca _while he was thinking _ET_.

For the record I consider  the term "non-national" to be meaningless and habitual lazy shorthand (in this country in various circles) for "non *Irish *national".


----------



## diarmuidc (23 Nov 2007)

stir crazy said:


> I find your posts to be misleading, for example pretending you dont know what 'non national' means.


Do you read the replies to question which *you *have already posed?


RainyDay said:


> I guess that most posters will have picked up the fact that I was highlighting the offensive and inaccurate nature of the term 'non-national', which has regrettably drifted into common usage.


----------



## stir crazy (23 Nov 2007)

diarmuidc said:


> Do you read the replies to question which *you *have already posed?



I read every single word. And I stand by what I said.  Its' arrogant to assume everybody knows what Rainyday was writing about. Rainyday assumes everyone knows what Rainyday is writing about which is *wrong* and then proceeds to lecture us on the use of misleading language which is hypocritical and could be seen by some as snobbery.



Havealaugh said:


> Non-national means not from this nation, it doesn't mean they don't have a nationality



Above you can see at least one person felt it necessary to answer the question or was misled into answering it.




I'm not trying to offend anyone. Just my opinion. Hope you can take it. I believe in equality of explanations when language is used.  This is much saner and fairer than the nonsensical, snobbish  overly pc approach as my approach includes everyone, especially those who dont know things in advance and does not stand in judgement over others who are 'out of the loop'. This thread is fun . keep it coming


----------



## annR (23 Nov 2007)

I don't think there is an element of snobbishness or an overly PC approach in the thread.  Not everyone interprets these phrases the same as you, stir crazy, it's a subjective thing.  You may have been happy to be known as a guest in other countries but I would not be comfortable using 'guest' when referring to someone who has been here for years or intends to stay for the forseeable future.  The word implies (to me) that they are going to go away again and I would prefer to leave that implication out.  That is not being PC.
Likewise, 'foreigner' implies to me someone who is totally foreign in every way and who I will never have anything in common with.  This is why I prefer foreign national.  Again, not PC just my preference of expression based on my subject interpretation of the words.  I don't really understand why you bring phrases like snobbishness and PC into this.


----------



## Persius (23 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> The problem is that non-national is NOT a factual description. I don't know anyone who does not have a nationality.


 
Palestinians perhaps?



stir crazy said:


> Foreign workers are always free to return to their original homes if they so wish and they freely choose to come here so I dont see how anyone who is invited to this country lacks independence or freedom. Whenever I have lived and worked abroad I have seen myself as a guest in a country with a different culture to my own and understood that citizenship and residency is not a right but a privilege to thankful for.


 
But non-Irish EU citizens do have residency rights here. Granted they are not absolute rights, but are pretty strong rights all the same. Therefore to call such people, who are living and working long term here, "guests" is misleading and offensive. By paying their taxes they are contributing to society and no longer just "guests".


----------



## Guest127 (24 Nov 2007)

when I was enquiring  about purchasing an apartment in Turkey two years ago the term used to describe non Turkish citizens was foreigner ie a_ foreigner may own property._ etc. I never took it to be offensive.


----------



## rmelly (24 Nov 2007)

I think the fact that the term is in common use and the PC brigade aren't bombarding the airwaves and other media outlets with their objections answers any questions about it's offensiveness.


----------



## RainyDay (24 Nov 2007)

rmelly said:


> the PC brigade


I find that term offensive.


----------



## ajapale (24 Nov 2007)

I also find the term "PC brigade" to be offensive as the phrase "Political correctness" is almost always used in a perjorative sence.

On the subject of the word "foreigner". I would never use the word to describe someone from England, Scotland or Wales.


----------



## rmelly (24 Nov 2007)

ajapale said:


> almost always used in a perjorative sence.


 
and for good reason, I think most reasonable people would agree. Why create a problem where one doesn't exist? For example we aren't supposed to use the phrase 'black economy' any more in case it's offensive to black people working in the illegal economy. Where does it end?


----------



## ajapale (24 Nov 2007)

Ive never hear anyone object to the term "black economy".


----------



## stir crazy (24 Nov 2007)

ajapale said:


> Ive never hear anyone object to the term "black economy".



I've never heard anyone having a problem with being described as a guest.

The word 'guest' is one of the friendliest most wholesome words in the dictionary in my view. A guest is somebody who is by definition invited and welcome. A guest is supposed to feel loved. The word is almost the complete opposite of intruder. Anyone who has a problem with such language is  in my view neurotic. I'm sorry but it just had to be said.


----------



## stir crazy (24 Nov 2007)

annR said:


> Not everyone interprets these phrases the same as you, stir crazy, it's a subjective thing. ....  I don't really understand why you bring phrases like snobbishness and PC into this.




I never prejudge a situation out of context with the snobby idea that my way of viewing the world is the only way which is how this thread got started. An innocent and friendly word like 'guest' was used as an excuse to hijack and eventually split a thread, begin a pc rant and perhaps show off the 'immigration credentials' of some while having the rest of us wearing hair shirts and lashing ourselves for all our language sins. 




Persius said:


> But non-Irish EU citizens do have residency rights here. Granted they are not absolute rights, but are pretty strong rights all the same. Therefore to call such people, who are living and working long term here, "guests" is misleading and offensive. By paying their taxes they are contributing to society and no longer just "guests".



I never claimed that one word describes anyone or any situation in its entirety. Unlike the 'pc set' who wish to neurotically tag on a series of cringing apologies and explanations to every word and sentence in common usage. If the extremists of the 'pc set' had their way, language would become both unworkable and impractical  and making  a point would take longer than anyone has patience.
As far as misleading and offensive goes, I refer to my previous post and the definition of guest which when applied to anybody is an opposite to the concept of an unwelcome intruder.





ajapale said:


> I also find the term "PC brigade" to be offensive as the phrase "Political correctness" is almost always used in a perjorative sence.



For those who promote "Political correctness"  to lack pride in the label is both ironic and funny.



ajapale said:


> On the subject of the word "foreigner". I would never use the word to describe someone from England, Scotland or Wales.



Anyone not entitled to citizenship of this country is a foreigner whether those of a pc persuasion  like it or not. I find such things as singing the british national anthem and royal watching as extremely foreign and I think the majority of our citizens  and residents in fact actually feel the same way.


----------



## ajapale (24 Nov 2007)

I dont regard Northern Irish Unionists as foreigners.


----------



## stir crazy (24 Nov 2007)

ajapale said:


> I dont regard Northern Irish Unionists as foreigners.



People either dont understand the issue properly or are not paying attention.

Northern Ireland Unionists as a group are generally entitled to citizenship under the terms of our constitution hence I would not have described them as foreigners in any previous post .  Whether you are  a unionist yourself or  wish to join them singing god save the queen, wear a poppy or join the orange order (which is definitely non pc)... etc is entirely your own business ajapale and very few people would care either way.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Nov 2007)

stir crazy said:


> I've never heard anyone having a problem with being described as a guest.
> 
> The word 'guest' is one of the friendliest most wholesome words in the dictionary in my view. A guest is somebody who is by definition invited and welcome. A guest is supposed to feel loved. The word is almost the complete opposite of intruder. Anyone who has a problem with such language is  in my view neurotic. I'm sorry but it just had to be said.


Do you accept that the word 'guest' implies a temporary visit, at the discretion or under the control of a host, as opposed to independent, permanent residency?



stir crazy said:


> I never prejudge a situation out of context with the snobby idea that my way of viewing the world is the only way which is how this thread got started. An innocent and friendly word like 'guest' was used as an excuse to hijack and eventually split a thread, begin a pc rant and perhaps show off the 'immigration credentials' of some while having the rest of us wearing hair shirts and lashing ourselves for all our language sins.


Not true - this thread started around use of the term non-national. The 'guest' issue came later on.

It is quite funny to hear you complaining about rants and then going off on 'hair shirts and lashing ourselves'. I only see one poster ranting in this thread.


----------



## stir crazy (25 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Do you accept that the word 'guest' implies a temporary visit, at the discretion or under the control of a host, as opposed to independent, permanent residency?



As I said before, well done for establishing your 'immigration credentials' Rainyday. In my opinion you only address those of my points which make yourself look good. Are you using language to advocate an open door immigration policy ? I have no idea which policy works best but  I'm just curious. Perhaps those who know better like yourself could teach me something ?
I dont know why you have a problem with those applying for citizenship being guests until they obtain citizenship. Or do you think citizenship is something worthless we should give everybody without any kind of vetting procedure or waiting period. How do you treat guests in your own home ? Should invited guests fear to appear at your door ?



RainyDay said:


> Not true - this thread started around use of the term non-national. The 'guest' issue came later on.
> 
> It is quite funny to hear you complaining about rants and then going off on 'hair shirts and lashing ourselves'. I only see one poster ranting in this thread.



The 'guest issue' is a non issue.
Picking on the language of someone with an idea is a sly way to silence that idea. Every post of mine was in response to a question. The vast majority dealt with old ideas. If you have a problem with imagery; which I think suitable and appropriate for the particular case; such as 'hair shirt' then tough.  


I completely disagree with this remark which is an unnecessary distraction from the issues of , 

1) hijacking an issue about a bus strike into a worthless debate about words which in my opinion only a tiny minority of neurotics with nothing better to do would find  a problem with. As I said before; picking on the language of someone expressing a valid idea without acknowledging the validity of that idea is a sly way to silence that idea.

2) Your choice to see ambiguity where none exists and also to interpret this perceived ambiguity the negative way.  You complain about ambiguity yet I have shown conclusively in this thread that you have no problem misleading others when it suits you. Most people in this thread dont know what the fuss is about.

Sorry is this offends anyone . Just my opinion.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Nov 2007)

stir crazy said:


> Are you using language to advocate an open door immigration policy ?


Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to be provoked into denials by your posts. 


stir crazy said:


> I dont know why you have a problem with those applying for citizenship being guests until they obtain citizenship.


Why would you assume that the 'guests' are applying for citizenship?



stir crazy said:


> Or do you think citizenship is something worthless we should give everybody without any kind of vetting procedure or waiting period.


See first answer above.


----------



## stir crazy (25 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to be provoked into denials by your posts.



That response doesnt make any sense. Its the kind of attitude which I earlier perceived as intellectual snobbery. Theres obviously a class system at work now with two classes of people. One class understands Rainydays' policies (perhaps with the benefit of some explanation) and the other class doesnt.  This is what I find disappointing.



RainyDay said:


> Why would you assume that the 'guests' are applying for citizenship?




Why would you assume I would assume anything ? I assume nothing which is why I have repeatedly asked you questions for clarification which you refuse to answer.


----------



## RainyDay (25 Nov 2007)

stir crazy said:


> That response doesnt make any sense. Its the kind of attitude which I earlier perceived as intellectual snobbery. Theres obviously a class system at work now with two classes of people. One class understands Rainydays' policies (perhaps with the benefit of some explanation) and the other class doesnt.  This is what I find disappointing.
> 
> Why would you assume I would assume anything ? I assume nothing which is why I have repeatedly asked you questions for clarification which you refuse to answer.


This just playing word games now. You are repeatedly trying to put words and opinions into my mouth. Whenever you feel like having a sensible discussion on this (or other topics), let me know and I'll rejoin the thread.


----------



## stir crazy (25 Nov 2007)

RainyDay said:


> This just playing word games now.



Such as misleading others into answering a question you already fully know the answer to ?



RainyDay said:


> You are repeatedly trying to put words and opinions into my mouth.



Thats a good trick any reasonable person would find physically impossible.

As I got the impression  you were withholding some information by refusing to answer questions, I am trying to draw your own opinions into your post by asking you questions which I find totally reasonable in any forum or arena of discussion.  Thats all I have done. Otherwise who am I talking with  and whats the point of a poster supposedly expressing strong beliefs about something but misrepresenting himself at the same time ?
I'll give you an example. I noticed from some threads that you have an interest in politics. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who was shifty and refused to answer questions about his/her policies ?





> I'll rejoin the thread



Its' your thread. Thankyou  and take care.


----------



## michaelm (26 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> For the record I consider the term "non-national" to be meaningless and habitual lazy shorthand (in this country in various circles) for "non *Irish *national".


Well that settles it so.  Actually, on reading it again, it's contradictory.





RainyDay said:


> I find that term [PC brigade] offensive.


What about 'various circles' Rainy, is that offensive too?


----------



## extopia (26 Nov 2007)

How about "person"? Unless it's actually of vital importance to know that the person in question is not Irish?


----------



## stir crazy (26 Nov 2007)

extopia said:


> How about "person"? Unless it's actually of vital importance to know that the person in question is not Irish?



That was one of my points earlier. I totally agree with you here extopia.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Nov 2007)

michaelm said:


> Well that settles it so.  Actually, on reading it again, it's contradictory.


Maybe I should have said _"... lazy shorthand presumably intended to mean something like non *Irish *national"_? Hope that clarifies matters for you.


----------



## room305 (27 Nov 2007)

extopia said:


> How about "person"? Unless it's actually of vital importance to know that the person in question is not Irish?



This seems a bit unrealistic in a pious lets-link-hands-across-the-borders kind of way. The sentiment is right but it would very much go against human nature. In any news report about a crime, people will be curious to know the age, gender, social status and country of origin of those involved. The paper that started printing reports like this:



> A person died early today after being found with severe head injuries.
> 
> The person was taken to St James hospital after being found in an apartment block in Dublin city centre.
> 
> ...


Would probably lose business to the paper printing reports like this:



> A MAN died early today after being found with severe head injuries.The non-national was taken to St James hospital after being found in an apartment block in Dublin city centre.
> 
> The man, thought to be a Lithuanian, was found by members of the emergency services at Bridge Water Quay in Islandbridge.
> 
> ...


----------



## room305 (27 Nov 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Maybe I should have said _"... lazy shorthand presumably intended to mean something like non *Irish *national"_? Hope that clarifies matters for you.



Interestingly the term "non-national" is defined in the Irish Statute book, specifically in relation to the Employment Permits Act of 2003, but possibly elsewhere as well.



> “non-national” means a person who is not a citizen of the State.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0007/print.html#sec1

This seems different to the context in which it should be applied as argued by many on this thread and my own previous understanding of how the term was employed.


----------



## extopia (27 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> In any news report about a crime, people will be curious to know the age, gender, social status and country of origin of those involved.



Really? What is that analysis based on exactly?


----------



## room305 (27 Nov 2007)

extopia said:


> Really? What is that analysis based on exactly?



Do you want to read a thesis or do you want to apply some common sense?

Businesses having been reporting the "news" for hundreds of years. Presumably, as some thrived and others failed, their ability to report the details of the items of interest to the public has been honed to a fine degree.

I am not aware of any news outlet that systemically decides to omit all information relating to the nationality/sex/age of the people about whom they are reporting.

Funny that the idea of doing so should be supported by a poster ranting about the "PC brigade".


----------



## ClubMan (27 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> Interestingly the term "non-national" is defined in the Irish Statute book, specifically in relation to the Employment Permits Act of 2003, but possibly elsewhere as well.


That is interesting alright! Thanks for that.


----------



## extopia (27 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> Do you want to read a thesis or do you want to apply some common sense?



Actually, yes - I would indeed like to see something more than "anecdotal evidence" to support your claim.



> Businesses having been reporting the "news" for hundreds of years. Presumably, as some thrived and others failed, their ability to report the details of the items of interest to the public has been honed to a fine degree.



Undoubtedly. Sensationalism sells more papers. The tabloids have thrived at the expense of good reporting. Is that a good thing?



> I am not aware of any news outlet that systemically decides to omit all information relating to the nationality/sex/age of the people about whom they are reporting.



How about the New York Times? 

Multiculturalism is new in Ireland, but other societies have drawn on their longer experience to evolve codes of practice that seek to reduce biased language. If you can find it online, check out the New York Times Style Guide, or the Chicago Manual of Style. The Guardian follows similar practices, as do many good news organisations worldwide. These guides generally recommend the ommission of spurious details about age/sex/race/country of origin/sexual orientation etc.




> Funny that the idea of doing so should be supported by a poster ranting about the "PC brigade".



Eh, I don't understand that part. ;-)


----------



## stir crazy (27 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> Funny that the idea of doing so should be supported by a poster ranting about the "PC brigade".



You have some good ideas. However I'd be careful that accusing someone of ranting could distract from the real issues.


----------



## michaelm (27 Nov 2007)

room305 said:


> Interestingly the term "non-national" is defined in the Irish Statute book, specifically in relation to the Employment Permits Act of 2003, but possibly elsewhere as well.


Which raises the possibility that it may not in fact be a 'meaningless' term;  Who'd have thought.


----------



## casiopea (27 Nov 2007)

Well for insight into how other countries work - here Im officially referred to as a "Ausländerin", meaning foreigner.  As are all expats (Ausländer | Ausländerin).  As far as Im aware people dont really take offence at the term.  I am a foreigner.


----------



## room305 (30 Nov 2007)

extopia said:


> Actually, yes - I would indeed like to see something more than "anecdotal evidence" to support your claim.


 
Em, you're the one proposing a radical departure in how the news is reported. Why would the onus fall on me to prove whether this is likely to succeed or not?



extopia said:


> Undoubtedly. Sensationalism sells more papers. The tabloids have thrived at the expense of good reporting. Is that a good thing?


 
I never suggested it was good, bad or indifferent, merely that the way the news is currently reported is a sustainable business model. It is not yet known whether reporting the news but deliberately omitting all details relating to a person's race/age/gender/nationality is or not.



extopia said:


> How about the New York Times?


 
Are you saying the New York Times practises a deliberate policy of reporting news without reference to any individual's nationality?



extopia said:


> Multiculturalism is new in Ireland, but other societies have drawn on their longer experience to evolve codes of practice that seek to reduce biased language. If you can find it online, check out the New York Times Style Guide, or the Chicago Manual of Style. The Guardian follows similar practices, as do many good news organisations worldwide. These guides generally recommend the ommission of spurious details about age/sex/race/country of origin/sexual orientation etc.


 
Okay, but what term do they use when they don't consider the person's country of origin to be a "spurious" detail? Remember, I'm arguing that "non-national" is a ridiculous term to use to describe foreign nationals - primarily because it is inaccurate. However, it is impractical to imagine we can just omit such details entirely. A fact you now seem to be acknowledging.


----------



## ragazza (30 Nov 2007)

casiopea said:


> Well for insight into how other countries work - here Im officially referred to as a "Ausländerin", meaning foreigner. As are all expats (Ausländer | Ausländerin). As far as Im aware people dont really take offence at the term. I am a foreigner.


 
More insight into how other countries work. In spain I am officially an "extranjera" (foreigner). My ID card has a huge "E" for extranjera on it. I dont mind - since I'm not spanish, I am a foreigner here.


----------



## Gordanus (30 Nov 2007)

What about a poll?
I would always prefer 'foreigner' in ordinary speech /writing - I don't see any need to use legalese unless it is within a legal context.  On the other hand the term 'non-national' may just be a fad that is 'rolling out' nationwide.....there are enough of these faddish terms. It'll go out of fashion eventually.


----------

