Bigley's killer controls ten Dublin agents

Hobbes

naitkris wrote:

i give up - you win Hobbes.

It is not a matter of "winning". Your entitled to your opinion, but if you can't prove your opinion that you can't quote it as a fact. Which is what the general impression was to begin with.

There are certainly cases where another persons opinion differs from mine and is factual (either thiers or both).

not having the facts and figures to convince you or anyone else Hobbes does not bother me in the least... i am giving an OPINION and personally feel that not every post a person makes on the Politics forum or any other forum on boards.ie has to be backed up with facts and figures before posting.

Again, you are just stating an opinion. You have no facts or proof or anything to back this up. You are basing your opinion from what I see on a completly different country.

Oh and from the board charter..

board charter wrote:

When offering an opinion, please state so. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flamage.

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

Meh

naitkris wrote:

ijust as a sample of one of many problems that have occured to due to bad asylum and immigration policies - in Norway only around 10% of people in it's jails are actually Norwegian

Utter rubbish

Total crimes in 2003: 257 058
Crimes committed by Norwegian citizens: 233 618

naitkris

Hobbes wrote:

It is not a matter of "winning". Your entitled to your opinion, but if you can't prove your opinion that you can't quote it as a fact. Which is what the general impression was to begin with.

it was a joke... forgot i was posting in the Politics forum when i wrote that...

Hobbes wrote:

Again, you are just stating an opinion. You have no facts or proof or anything to back this up. You are basing your opinion from what I see on a completly different country.

similarities can be drawn from the mistakes of other countries so that those mistakes are not needlessly repeated...

Hobbes wrote:

Oh and from the board charter..

i tried as many times to outline that what i said was my opinion:

naitkris wrote:

i see cases all the time

naitkris wrote:

I am coming from the point of view

naitkris wrote:

I believe i.m.o.

naitkris wrote:

I may be wrong on that

naitkris wrote:

i am giving an OPINION

i realise i didn't do it all the time, fair enough i see your point on that - i will try to do so more in future. with regards to facts about %'s - most of the data i have found is in Swedish or Norwegian and were i to post it most people here would not understand it and dismiss it one way or another. anyways, it's do with Norway and Sweden which is of no interest anyway it seems...

naitkris

Meh wrote:

Utter rubbish

true - my mistake. read it elsewhere on quick Google search :-(

thanks for correcting me Meh - although those figures are by Norwegian citizens... it includes citizens of foreign born parents and even foreign born citizens etc. - yet i am sure the 10% i read is still very far off.. thanks for posting this.

Carpo

naitkris wrote:

i give up - you win Hobbes.

however, let me say that the reason i am saying what i was is because we had these kind of discussions in Sweden in the 70's, 80's etc. and people asked like yourself Hobbes for the facts and figures to support the theory that all wasn't rosy with the policy of the Government, yet these figures weren't all available at that time (the first decade or so of the mass surge in asylum seekers - it's too early to see the positives and negatives). today however Sweden has realised it's mistakes and has a much tighter and fairer asylum seeker and immigration process because of it - allowing those who deserve asylum etc. in and those who want to cause problems out.

And yet you have made no critisism of the selection process here bar saying it is bad thing and agreeing with Dathi1's assertion that it is a 'joke'. If it is a joke then why is it a joke exectly? The only eveidence youve provided is that you hear stories on the news about it all the time. That doesnt count for much.

But then you confuse the issue even further by saying the important statistic is not the nmber of succesful applications, nor even the amount of asylum seekers who go on to commit crimes but that its the surge in applications over the past decade. If the filtration process is working how is this relevant? If its not working then criminals are going to get through anyway so the amount of applications or their rate if change is still irrelevant is it not? I mean we cant stop people from applying, so surely the problem would lie in how they are handled rather than how many there are. Unless of course you think that asylum seekers are inherently a Bad Thing (not that I'm accusing you, but you havent been very clear on the issue)

naitkris wrote:

just as a sample of one of many problems that have occured to due to bad asylum and immigration policies - in Norway only around 10% of people in it's jails are actually Norwegian - Sweden isn't too different.

First of all, have you anything to back this assertion up?

Secondly, why doesnt the government just deport these people if they are not Norweigen? Or are you differentiating between people who have been granted citizenship / asylum by Norway and natvie Norweigens?

naitkris wrote:

Back on topic...

...the topic is how a number of terrorist agents who have found their way into Ireland

No, its about how allegedly some terrorists may have found thier way into Ireland. The difference is important.

naitkris wrote:

and I believe i.m.o. that this is partly because of Ireland's bad asylum policy and bad immigration control among primarily -

And yet there is nothing in the article to say how they may have come Ireland. It does not indicate that they may have applied for asylum. It does not indicate wether they might have criminal records in which case there is no way any immigration process is going to pick them up as they would be here legally. It doesnt even say that they are here on their holidays. So what exactly are you basing your critisisms on?

naitkris wrote:

not having the facts and figures to convince you or anyone else Hobbes does not bother me in the least... i am giving an OPINION and personally feel that not every post a person makes on the Politics forum or any other forum on boards.ie has to be backed up with facts and figures before posting.

Everyone has an opinion and thats super. But this is a discussion board and you are expected to be able to debate and back up you opinions. If you werent it would be a statement board.

naitkris

i have made a right mess of this thread - really sorry for that.

continue with the main topic.

Captain Trips

Meh wrote:

Utter rubbish

Total crimes in 2003: 257 058
Crimes committed by Norwegian citizens: 233 618

Umm, isn't that crimes, not imprisonments. No surprise that 91% of crimes in Norway are commited by Norwegians - it's bloody Norway after all. I'm quite sure that at least 91% of crimes in Ireland are committed by Irish people, and so on in every western country.

That statistic is very telling however as 11% of the Norwegian population have an immediate immigrant-related origin (http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2002-09-06-02-en.html).

A telling comparison that Norway experienced it's economic boom in the 1960s when there was discovery of copious oil and gas there; looking at the above "Migration of Foreign Citizens" graph it's obvious that Ireland with it's remarkable similar population demographic and geographic factors is and will experience similarities.

A major difference and one which could be devastating to Ireland's economy is that taking the fact that only 25% of the Norway immigrants are related in some way to Norwegians, Ireland speaks English, which is far easier for an immigrant/asylum seeker to learn. Without proper border controls an effective free-for-all will be created (that increase in asylum applications says nothing of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants) as can be seen in the snowball of applicants.

Basically an open door into a wealthy English-speaking country that allows open access to all of Europe and has the only non-continental US Immigration/Naturalisation border checkpoint outside of US territory in the world allowing open access to Europe and the US. Very dangerous, so rather than punish the Irish citizenry by closing borders and increasing our personal restrictions, it is absolutely necessary to simply patrol/police and regulate the external border of getting into Ireland in the first place.

Or would you rather be treated like the Irish were 50 years ago.

Hobbes

Captain Trips wrote:

Umm, isn't that crimes, not imprisonments. No surprise that 91% of crimes in Norway are commited by Norwegians - it's bloody Norway after all. I'm quite sure that at least 91% of crimes in Ireland are committed by Irish people, and so on in every western country.

However those stats would imply that the majority of people in prison are Norwegian as well, unless Norway lets most of its criminals out of prison to the point where less then 20k-30k are Norwegian.

That statistic is very telling however as 11% of the Norwegian population have an immediate immigrant-related origin (http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2002-09-06-02-en.html).

No it says "Some immigrant related background", not immediate immigrant related. If you were to take immediate related then you are looking at 6.6% according to that site.

It also points out that ... "Immigration to Norway has been important both for growth and composition of the population in Norway."

it's obvious that Ireland with it's remarkable similar population demographic and geographic factors is and will experience similarities.

No its not. They are different countries, different laws and Norway isn't even in the EU.

A major difference and one which could be devastating to Ireland's economy is that taking the fact that only 25% of the Norway immigrants are related in some way to Norwegians,

You know this is a better page, although probably doesn't get your point across the way you wanted.

http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/
"At the beginning of 2004 the immigrant population in Norway was 349 000 and accounted for 7.6 per cent of the total population."

You can also see that Swedes and Danish make up the most of the people without norwegian contacts.

Refugees (people who have been accepted Asylum) totals around 100,000 which is tiny compared to the population.

Also the same site shows that 9 out of 10 people don't suffer from Xenophobia, so it is hardly an issue that the majority are complaining about.

Ireland speaks English, which is far easier for an immigrant/asylum seeker to learn.

Hardly. Being able to speak the language doesn't mean you have a better chance of getting in. It will certainly help once you are in though.

Without proper border controls an effective free-for-all will be created (that increase in asylum applications says nothing of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants) as can be seen in the snowball of applicants.

What snowball of applicants? In Sweden or here? If it is here, there are actually less applicants this year then the year before.

Basically an open door into a wealthy English-speaking country that allows open access to all of Europe

How do you work that out?

Or would you rather be treated like the Irish were 50 years ago.

You mean xenophobic?

naitkris

just in case some people don't know - the Prime Time feature on RTE1 with relevance to the topic of this thread starts at 21:30...

Captain Trips

Hobbes wrote:

However those stats would imply that the majority of people in prison are Norwegian as well, unless Norway lets most of its criminals out of prison to the point where less then 20k-30k are Norwegian. [/quote[

No it doesn't in any way mean that - you can't derive such a meaning at all; it means that we have to go find out if there is a difference between the proportion of crimes committed by Norwegians and the proportion of prison population that are Norwegian.

And what would that mean? That if there are less, even by 5 or 10% Norwegian's in prison compared to crimes committed does that mean
a) Norwegian's have a racist judicial system
b) Immigrants are more likely to commit crimes and be in prison?

It also points out that ... "Immigration to Norway has been important both for growth and composition of the population in Norway."

No-one is arguing this. It's a meaningless statement - immigration (people coming in to the country) is important to GROW the population and that the immigrants MAKE UP part of the population (composition). Yes, it sounds fancy but is government double-speak - basically people in a country make up part of the country's population. Read it again.

Nowhere does it suggest that immigration is important for economic growth or standard of living improvement. Instead: more people = higher population. Duh.

No its not. They are different countries, different laws and Norway isn't even in the EU.

With similarities that we can learn from. They experienced a boom in the 1960s.

Refugees (people who have been accepted Asylum) totals around 100,000 which is tiny compared to the population.

For example, Norway has a slightly larger population than Ireland. It has a similar geographic spread, with a concentrated proportion in the capital and the rest spread over a large countryside. Like it or not, that describes Norway and Ireland.

Also the same site shows that 9 out of 10 people don't suffer from Xenophobia, so it is hardly an issue that the majority are complaining about.

Population stats I can believe, but opinionated such as whether people are xenophobia is hopelessly meaningless. For example, the La Pierre experiment as far back as 1934 did a survey on whether a commonly assumed attitudes lead to predicting behavior - it showed it, like many such studies on attitudes like xenophobia, etc., are not predictive, so let's stick to the facts. 9 out of 10 people agree with this.

No xenophobia but plenty of eugenics.....................?

Hardly. Being able to speak the language doesn't mean you have a better chance of getting in. It will certainly help once you are in though.

Actually I think it does. A factor in immigration is ability to adapt to the new culture. This is of course outside of asylum seeking.

What snowball of applicants? In Sweden or here? If it is here, there are actually less applicants this year then the year before.

THE INCREASE FROM 39/YEAR TO 11,000/YEAR. I can't honestly believe that you think somehow that is a not a snowballing. Don't just say less; it's down to 7,000 from 11,000, but overall up from just 39 in 1992. Yes I know there has been a drop in applicants. I would like to know if this coincides with the stronger policy on immigration which was not in force 48 months ago.

How do you work that out?

/beats head against wall




Wanting proper border control IS NOT XENOPHOBIA.

We now live in a world where we are fingerprinted in Dublin to visit a relative in New York. I think at the very least we in Ireland deserve to know that the unknowns arriving to our shores are who they say they are and deserve what asylum they deserve. The fact is, there's plenty of asylum, whether you deserve it or not.


I am not calling for armed police and cavity searches for everyone who wants to get into Tesco, but instead simply if someone's application is refused than they are deported, same as I would be or you would be in any EU country or the US. The fact is that a majority of declined applicants are not deported (or, at least, this year much more are deported - again, I would like to know if it is conincidental with the drop in applicants).

naitkris

i have to agree with a lot of what Captain Trips has just said.

proper border control is one important area that needs to be looked at but with different E.U. countries enforcing border controls differently and also the E.U.'s law that borders should not exist to fellow E.U. citizens it is another big issue and a problem that is at the heart of the E.U. in my OPINION.

Hobbes

Captain Trips wrote:

No it doesn't in any way mean that - you can't derive such a meaning at all; it means that we have to go find out if there is a difference between the proportion of crimes committed by Norwegians and the proportion of prison population that are Norwegian.

However if 90% of the crimes are Norwegian and the 90% is an insanely large number as shown, then if that is not the case the figures imply that less then 20k-30k in prison are Norwegian, as that is around how many of the figure are crimes done by immigrants.

Or we could just dig out the figures.

Nowhere does it suggest that immigration is important for economic growth or standard of living improvement.

Except in the actual quote that I posted from the site+page you orginally linked to.

With similarities that we can learn from. They experienced a boom in the 1960s.

Which is completly meaningless. You have different culture, different laws and your basing your comparision on something that happened over 40 years ago without taking the current political/markets/culture of the current day.

Like it or not, that describes Norway and Ireland.

Again that is meaningless. Take a block of hard butter and a brick. Both are similar sizes, both are rectangular'ish and if you have enough of both you can build yourself a little house.

That describes Blocks of butter and bricks.

Population stats I can believe, but opinionated such as whether people are xenophobia is hopelessly meaningless. For example, the La Pierre experiment ...

I was just quoting from the site you used, now you are saying the site is wrong? I was also not familar with the LaPierre experiment so I looked it up. It actually relates to lack of racial hatred compared to a survey done. This would imply that the survey I looked at (on the site you posted) would mean that 9 out of 10 is a lower number then expected.

But you are implying the reverse, do you have anything to prove the reverse beyond your opinion?

so let's stick to the facts. 9 out of 10 people agree with this.

As I said, I took that figure from the site you originally quoted.

Actually I think it does. A factor in immigration is ability to adapt to the new culture. This is of course outside of asylum seeking.

It is possible to to move to another country and never absorb into that culture. In fact the older you are the less likely you are going to. This is quite self-evident in many countries across all cultures (including Irish in another country).

There is no set rule in immigration that you are required to absorb into the culture in that country. In fact the only country off hand I know that does do this is England.

I can't honestly believe that you think somehow that is a not a snowballing.

Again what are you talking about? Ireland? Asylum? As far as I am aware from numerous threads on this forum (with links to actual facts) the number of Asylum seekers is down, and accepted Refugees is down again. But this is a different issue to Immigration.

If it is Sweden, well tbh this whole thread is getting offtopic and if it is the case then it means if we automatically assume the two countries are the same (as you said) we probably won't have the same problem for 40 years.

/beats head against wall

I was trying to figure out how a country being rich and English speaking makes it easier to get into the EU? After all not all of the EU speak English.

I think at the very least we in Ireland deserve to know that the unknowns arriving to our shores are who they say they are and deserve what asylum they deserve. The fact is, there's plenty of asylum, whether you deserve it or not.

That is currently the case. If you don't get Refugee status you are deported.

You seem to be mixing Asylum with immigration as well. They are seperate issues.

The fact is that a majority of declined applicants are not deported (or, at least, this year much more are deported - again, I would like to know if it is conincidental with the drop in applicants).

So the majority at the moment are actually deported. If you bother to read back through posts you would see that loopholes have been closed up since early last year.

Hobbes

naitkris wrote:

The E.U.'s law that borders should not exist to fellow E.U. citizens it is another big issue and a problem that is at the heart of the E.U. in my OPINION.

Depends on how you define do not exist. Have you tried to move to another country in the EU?

Captain Trips

You seem to be arguing a lot of semantics in response, without actually producing any data of your own except opinion. That site I linked of course has correct and incorrect assumptions.

The essence of the La Pierre experiment simply shows that assumptions of prejudice and indeed the extrapolation is assumptions in general attitudes do not predict behaviour. Nitpicking doesn't make it any less valid. 9 of 10 people say they are racist to Chinese in that experiment and that they would refuse them, but in fact it doesn't happen. My point was that picking such a comment of 9 of 10 Norwegian's say they aren't xenophobic proves nothing.

Like I said in the first paragraph, you are producing very little evidence of your own and instead are choosing to nitpick semantics and very apparently deny yourself the chance to expand and educate your views, so I'm going to stop now.

Hobbes

Captain Trips wrote:

You seem to be arguing a lot of semantics in response, without actually producing any data of your own except opinion. That site I linked of course has correct and incorrect assumptions.

Feel free to ask for particular parts and I will dig them out. The reason why I am not posting links because numerous and mean numerous links exists on other threads where such a debate has been done to death.

It is somewhat funny how the site is correct when it suits your argument though, and then false when it doesn't.

Of course if a particular point is false you could point to the actual facts to back up that part instead of pointing to some experiment done over 60 years ago or claim that because a different country became profitable 40 years ago that it would suddenly be the exact same conditions to Ireland now.

I was just using the same source as you to determine what you were saying was correct or not.

Nitpicking doesn't make it any less valid. 9 of 10 people say they are racist to Chinese in that experiment and that they would refuse them, but in fact it doesn't happen. My point was that picking such a comment of 9 of 10 Norwegian's say they aren't xenophobic proves nothing.

Who is nitpicking? The experiment which again is horribly old compared to current culture and in a different country showed that people tended to be more racist in surveys then in real life.

Unless there are futher experiments to back up the reverse I am not sure what you are getting at. You just seem to be trying to say that people lie in surveys. (Survey I checked btw)

Like I said in the first paragraph, you are producing very little evidence of your own and instead are choosing to nitpick semantics and very apparently deny yourself the chance to expand and educate your views, so I'm going to stop now.

As I said you are arguing stuff that has been done to death in other threads here. Sorry if I assumed that you had read them. So if there is something in particular you need to know in regards to Ireland, refugees, Asylum seekers and current counts, etc then I will be happy to rummage through the threads and dig out all the links for you.

But to somehow say there is a huge influx of people coming into the country and it is only getting bigger is false.

Also comparing a country to a completly different one 40 years ago is like comparing apples to oranges. You want to "expand and educate my views" then do so with actual facts you can back statements up with and don't just say "They are lying because of some experiment".

naitkris

Hobbes wrote:

Have you tried to move to another country in the EU?

lived for periods in Sweden, Ireland and Germany and can tell you that there is a big border control difference between those three countries

Hobbes

naitkris wrote:

lived for periods in Sweden, Ireland and Germany and can tell you that there is a big border control difference between those three countries

But I thought Sweden and Ireland where the same? :rolleyes:

Actually I was referring to moving within the EU. It's not just a simple matter of getting on a boat/plane and living in a new country. At least I have never found it was as simple as that.

naitkris

Hobbes wrote:

But I thought Sweden and Ireland where the same? :rolleyes:

lol... i think you wish they were the same - Sweden is much higher up in the U.N. Human Development Index which takes into account the standard of living etc. (Sweden is ranked no. 2 in the world - FACT - http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Human_Development_Index) while Ireland is in 10th place (which I think at 10th place is a bit overrated due to the gap between rich and poor in Ireland being a lot bigger than in Sweden and the cost of living also growing at a higher rate - but that's just my OPINION).

Hobbes wrote:

Actually I was referring to moving within the EU. It's not just a simple matter of getting on a boat/plane and living in a new country. At least I have never found it was as simple as that.

no it's not and i wasn't talking about that either - i was referring to living and working in the different countries - they each have different procedures - the last time i moved to Germany (2001) it was a whole different ball game with different forms and procedures that didn't exist in Ireland... this is an example of the difference in the way the different E.U. countries handle things.