Africa Day

cabinteelytom

Sunday 25-5-08 was a day to celebrate the contribution 'of Africa to Ireland', held without irony, at Dublin castle where the British plantation of Ireland was planned and managed. Many of those being celebrated have had ,in their young lives, only a short time (generally less than ten years) in which to make their contribution. Still, it's nice to be appreciated. They are fortunate- Ireland has not always had a good record of appreciating it's people.
Those Irish who are thinking,'we must be nearing the bottom of the pool of rootless and itinerant of the world' should think again. Of 164,635 people who were granted British citizenship in 2007; 31% were African and 22% were from Asian countries, the world's two most populous continents.
The UK has this year ,2008, introduced ten new measures intended to select the more economically desireable (ie qualified) immigrant and obstruct those demographic groups whose visit is more likely to lead to them becoming illegal immigrants. This places Ireland in line to become the next-favoured destination of the disappointed Briton-wannabees of the world, unless we adopt similar practices.
We are only three and a half million people (to give a world perspective, that's half the population of Israel).We cannot solve a world of want and threat and injustice by taking in the vulnerable and discontented of four continents. Should the rate of immigration of the past ten years continue, the Irish will be a minority in the Republic within 60 years. We are just that vulnerable.
That would be an unneccessary, indeed pointless, ending for the oldest nation in western Europe.
Let's not go under meekly. Let's make a fight of it. Some of our fellow-countrymen are embarrassed to say,'We want no more immigration;( we need to integrate the one's we already have)'.
Condemn those faint hearts. If we'd never stood up for ourselves, never been an awkward squad, we'd still be begging for a measure of home rule.
What needs to be done? A constitutional amendment to state,'Irish nationality shall not be granted to persons,other than those entitled by the articles of this Constitution'. (Take the granting of our nationality out of the hands of politicians.). Next, demand that the Irish economy, in boom-times and downturn, is directed to the employment of the people already here, not used to create 'jobs' which are attractive only to the internationally-mobile non-national.

segaBOY

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Sunday 25-5-08 was a day to celebrate the contribution 'of Africa to Ireland', held without irony, at Dublin castle where the British plantation of Ireland was planned and managed. Many of those being celebrated have had ,in their young lives, only a short time (generally less than ten years) in which to make their contribution. Still, it's nice to be appreciated. They are fortunate- Ireland has not always had a good record of appreciating it's people.
Those Irish who are thinking,'we must be nearing the bottom of the pool of rootless and itinerant of the world' should think again. Of 164,635 people who were granted British citizenship in 2007; 31% were African and 22% were from Asian countries, the world's two most populous continents.
The UK has this year ,2008, introduced ten new measures intended to select the more economically desireable (ie qualified) immigrant and obstruct those demographic groups whose visit is more likely to lead to them becoming illegal immigrants. This places Ireland in line to become the next-favoured destination of the disappointed Briton-wannabees of the world, unless we adopt similar practices.
We are only three and a half million people (to give a world perspective, that's half the population of Israel).We cannot solve a world of want and threat and injustice by taking in the vulnerable and discontented of four continents. Should the rate of immigration of the past ten years continue, the Irish will be a minority in the Republic within 60 years. We are just that vulnerable.
That would be an unneccessary, indeed pointless, ending for the oldest nation in western Europe.
Let's not go under meekly. Let's make a fight of it. Some of our fellow-countrymen are embarrassed to say,'We want no more immigration;( we need to integrate the one's we already have)'.
Condemn those faint hearts. If we'd never stood up for ourselves, never been an awkward squad, we'd still be begging for a measure of home rule.
What needs to be done? A constitutional amendment to state,'Irish nationality shall not be granted to persons,other than those entitled by the articles of this Constitution'. (Take the granting of our nationality out of the hands of politicians.). Next, demand that the Irish economy, in boom-times and downturn, is directed to the employment of the people already here, not used to create 'jobs' which are attractive only to the internationally-mobile non-national.

Most Irish people (including myself) agree with you, we are just too afraid to say it because we will be branded racists.

It's not racism, just economic and social sense. However, until politically correct dogooders wake up and smell the coffee the racist slur will be flung around and that's one of the worst things in the world to be called these days it seems.

I am not a racist, I just realise that the levels of immigration make it extremely difficult to plan especially when many immigrants arrive in Ireland without forewarning (such as asylum seekers) and services have to be provided at very short notice (national school in Castleknock anyone?)
I just hope with the economic downturn coming we don't have a repeat of the race riots once seen in London which would probably originate due to unemployment among unskilled and semi-skilled endogenous population. (Live register running at 5.5% now lets remember)

Read this Irish Indo article from 2000: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/only-two-out-of-5000-nigerians-genuine-376886.html

Abuse of the flawed system as been going on for years, lets fix it, now, it's for the good of everyone-Irish and immigrant alike.

Fratton Fred

maybe all those illegal Irish immigrants in the US could come home, that would help balance the numbers a bit.;)

Did I miss the bit in both your posts where you made a suggestion on how immigration could be controlled? lottery, qualifications? skin colour?

Do we include Poles, Latvians, Corkonians etc in this or only Africans and Asians?

mike65

Whats this got to do with Africa Day? Its just another thread about immigration.

Also The Belfast Agreement opened up an avenue for more not fewer "new Irish" no? Or have I got that wrong?

Mike.

wes

I don't think we can expect anything other than a nice nonsensical rant.

Of course immigration should be controlled. I don't think anyone is suggesting it shouldn't be, but typically the OP seems to have decided to mix in illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and asylum seekers all into one mass and indifferent group. Those are 3 very different groups and each needs to be tackled on there own. Instead we have the same old nonsense, where people can't seem to tell the difference and the terms are used inter-changeably.

With the exception of people from the EU, we should make sure that any immigrant coming to Ireland, will be of benefit to the country and that they also will benefit from coming here. We should decide on who comes to Ireland, based on whats best for both parties. Immigration should be decided on merit more than anything else.

Asylum seekers are a different story. The process should be quick and painless. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers and turf out the chancers and this needs to be done in a reasonable time frame.

As for illegal immigrants, they should be deported asap.

**EDIT**
Africa day has feck all to do with anything. Why it was even brought up is a mystery to me.

gandalf

And the actual point of this rant is what exactly?

segaBOY

wes wrote: »

I don't think we can expect anything other than a nice nonsensical rant.

Of course immigration should be controlled. I don't think anyone is suggesting it shouldn't be, but typically the OP seems to have decided to mix in illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and asylum seekers all into one mass and indifferent group. Those are 3 very different groups and each needs to be tackled on there own. Instead we have the same old nonsense, where people can't seem to tell the difference and the terms are used inter-changeably.

With the exception of people from the EU, we should make sure that any immigrant coming to Ireland, will be of benefit to the country and that they also will benefit from coming here. We should decide on who comes to Ireland, based on whats best for both parties. Immigration should be decided on merit more than anything else.

Asylum seekers are a different story. The process should be quick and painless. We should welcome genuine asylum seekers and turf out the chancers and this needs to be done in a reasonable time frame.

As for illegal immigrants, they should be deported asap.

**EDIT**
Africa day has feck all to do with anything. Why it was even brought up is a mystery to me.

1. Economic immigrants are a value to the country especially due to the labour shortage we had, I do think however that getting rid of a work permit system for all EU countries was a bit hasty-permanent solution to a temporary problem? Probably not. This would have had to be done in a few years anyway and I think as work gets more scarce EU workers will return home so not a massive problem.

But what about economic immigrants from outside the EU? Even if their work permits are withdrawn will they return home? This could cause too many people chasing too few jobs as happened in the 80s = not good.

2. Asylum seekers, as the article in my original post suggested widescale abuse of the system is occuring. I think we need a detention centre (like other european countries incl UK and Spain) to hold them while their applications are being processed-no point putting them up in a B & B or hotel (as has been done), it's not going to stop them running and becoming illegals!

Why hasn't one been built? Lack of funds? No, during Celtic Tiger times we had the funds and the widescale abuse of the system. It was because PC attitudes branded it racist, so the Government failed to act as the politicians didn't want to lose any votes. Now the problem will esculate as our economy is on the down-best of luck sorting that out.

3. Screening-why aren't asylum seekers screened for diseases like the Irish where in America? Almost half of all AIDS cases reported to the disease surveillence centre where from Sub Saharan Africa, God knows how much of the rest where from people who contracted the disease from the new arrivals due to sexual contact etc.

So disease screening is needed in my opinion.

4. More cooperation with the PSNI and less benifits. Lets face it, there is no direct flights from say Lagos to Dublin. Asylum seekers mostly arrive across the border. It is a general rule that the country that the asylum seeker arrives in should be the ones to host them. Most if not all of African Asylum Seekers come from the UK via the north-we need to try and Police this.

Furthermore, why do they come here? Because our benifits are way better than the UK. Free board, food, clothes, an allowance and even free phones are given from the HSE-it's not a myth it's the truth! Do you really need a mobile phone to survive? Grants to be put towards cars have even been given, this needs to be addressed.

wes

segaBOY wrote: »

1. Economic immigrants are a value to the country especially due to the labour shortage we had, I do think however that getting rid of a work permit system for all EU countries was a bit hasty-permanent solution to a temporary problem? Probably not. This would have had to be done in a few years anyway and I think as work gets more scarce EU workers will return home so not a massive problem.

But what about economic immigrants from outside the EU? Even if their work permits are withdrawn will they return home? This could cause too many people chasing too few jobs as happened in the 80s = not good.

Well, if they can't get jobs and they will probably just leave if all there here is due to economic reasons as opposed to settling down.

If there here to settle, they would probably have gotten citizenship.

segaBOY wrote: »

2. Asylum seekers, as the article in my original post suggested widescale abuse of the system is occuring. I think we need a detention centre (like other european countries incl UK and Spain) to hold them while their applications are being processed-no point putting them up in a B & B or hotel (as has been done), it's not going to stop them running and becoming illegals!

Why hasn't one been built? Lack of funds? No, during Celtic Tiger times we had the funds and the widescale abuse of the system. It was because PC attitudes branded it racist, so the Government failed to act as the politicians didn't want to lose any votes. Now the problem will esculate as our economy is on the down-best of luck sorting that out.

There should be no need for a detention center. Improve the current system, make it fair and quick. Those who fail in there application deported asap etc.

segaBOY wrote: »

3. Screening-why aren't asylum seekers screened for diseases like the Irish where in America? Almost half of all AIDS cases reported to the disease surveillence centre where from Sub Saharan Africa, God knows how much of the rest where from people who contracted the disease from the new arrivals due to sexual contact etc.

So disease screening is needed in my opinion.

AIDs prevention, would be better via education. If people didn't have unprotected sex, there would be no problems. Trying to blame the increase on immigrants is pointless. The problem is due to people engaging in risky sexual behavior.

segaBOY wrote: »

4. More cooperation with the PSNI and less benifits. Lets face it, there is no direct flights from say Lagos to Dublin. Asylum seekers mostly arrive across the border. It is a general rule that the country that the asylum seeker arrives in should be the ones to host them. Most if not all of African Asylum Seekers come from the UK via the north-we need to try and Police this.

Furthermore, why do they come here? Because our benifits are way better than the UK. Free board, food, clothes, an allowance and even free phones are given from the HSE-it's not a myth it's the truth! Do you really need a mobile phone to survive? Grants to be put towards cars have even been given, this needs to be addressed.

Claiming something is not a myth isn't proof of anything at all. The simple fact it is a myth.

Fratton Fred

segaBOY wrote: »

1. Economic immigrants are a value to the country especially due to the labour shortage we had, I do think however that getting rid of a work permit system for all EU countries was a bit hasty-permanent solution to a temporary problem? Probably not. This would have had to be done in a few years anyway and I think as work gets more scarce EU workers will return home so not a massive problem.

But what about economic immigrants from outside the EU? Even if their work permits are withdrawn will they return home? This could cause too many people chasing too few jobs as happened in the 80s = not good.

2. Asylum seekers, as the article in my original post suggested widescale abuse of the system is occuring. I think we need a detention centre (like other european countries incl UK and Spain) to hold them while their applications are being processed-no point putting them up in a B & B or hotel (as has been done), it's not going to stop them running and becoming illegals!

Why hasn't one been built? Lack of funds? No, during Celtic Tiger times we had the funds and the widescale abuse of the system. It was because PC attitudes branded it racist, so the Government failed to act as the politicians didn't want to lose any votes. Now the problem will esculate as our economy is on the down-best of luck sorting that out.

3. Screening-why aren't asylum seekers screened for diseases like the Irish where in America? Almost half of all AIDS cases reported to the disease surveillence centre where from Sub Saharan Africa, God knows how much of the rest where from people who contracted the disease from the new arrivals due to sexual contact etc.

So disease screening is needed in my opinion.

4. More cooperation with the PSNI and less benifits. Lets face it, there is no direct flights from say Lagos to Dublin. Asylum seekers mostly arrive across the border. It is a general rule that the country that the asylum seeker arrives in should be the ones to host them. Most if not all of African Asylum Seekers come from the UK via the north-we need to try and Police this.

Furthermore, why do they come here? Because our benifits are way better than the UK. Free board, food, clothes, an allowance and even free phones are given from the HSE-it's not a myth it's the truth! Do you really need a mobile phone to survive? Grants to be put towards cars have even been given, this needs to be addressed.

you've never actually met anyone from Africa have you?

segaBOY

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you've never actually met anyone from Africa have you?

Just one or two, haven't noticed them around tbh

segaBOY

wes wrote: »

Claiming something is not a myth isn't proof of anything at all. The simple fact it is a myth.

When you arrive in Ireland they are put up, fed, clothed and given an allowance-that's not a myth, harbours considerable expense to the Gonvernment and grants from the HSE have covered monies towards cars in the past.

wes

segaBOY wrote: »

When you arrive in Ireland they are put up, fed, clothed and given an allowance-that's not a myth, harbours considerable expense to the Gonvernment and grants from the HSE have covered monies towards cars in the past.

Well, they do have to put up somewhere. However, your exaggerating the amounts they receive.

segaBOY

wes wrote: »

Well, they do have to put up somewhere. However, your exaggerating the amounts they receive.

Didn't actually quote any figures to be exaggerated, I don't disagree with Asylum Seekers coming here however far too many are illigit, that's my prblem. It seems that the Africans living in war thorn countries like Darfur that actually need asylum cannot afford the plane tickets to London and for example only a handful of Burmese asylum seekers made it here after spending years in a Thai refugee camp-however wealthy Nigerians with no right to asylum under the UN charter of human rights end up here-is that really fair??

Fratton Fred

segaBOY wrote: »

Didn't actually quote any figures to be exaggerated, I don't disagree with Asylum Seekers coming here however far too many are illigit, that's my prblem. It seems that the Africans living in war thorn countries like Darfur that actually need asylum cannot afford the plane tickets to London and for example only a handful of Burmese asylum seekers made it here after spending years in a Thai refugee camp-however wealthy Nigerians with no right to asylum under the UN charter of human rights end up here-is that really fair??

So the fair thing then is to welcome them with open arms, put them up in a hostel and check out if they are legit, which is what happens. If their application is rejected they are sent packing.

The problem is that the process takes ages, if it is quicker, like Wes stated, a lo of the expense goes.

segaBOY

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the fair thing then is to welcome them with open arms, put them up in a hostel and check out if they are legit, which is what happens. If their application is rejected they are sent packing.

The problem is that the process takes ages, if it is quicker, like Wes stated, a lo of the expense goes.

Sent packing? Come off it bud, how many asylum seekers in Ireland are genuine? I refer to the article link posted above, most are simply allowed in, deportations are still only in double figures on a monthly basis. Most rejected dissappear-they aren't sent packing by no means, hence why we need a detention centre like in the UK and Spain.

wes

segaBOY wrote: »

Didn't actually quote any figures to be exaggerated, I don't disagree with Asylum Seekers coming here however far too many are illigit, that's my prblem. It seems that the Africans living in war thorn countries like Darfur that actually need asylum cannot afford the plane tickets to London and for example only a handful of Burmese asylum seekers made it here after spending years in a Thai refugee camp-however wealthy Nigerians with no right to asylum under the UN charter of human rights end up here-is that really fair??

As I said before, those who aren't genuine should be deported asap. I certainly think we need to improve the system.

segaBOY

wes wrote: »

As I said before, those who aren't genuine should be deported asap. I certainly think we need to improve the system.

Well we agree so. Thanks. I think a detention centre is need to speed up this process though.

menoscemo

segaBOY wrote: »

Just one or two, haven't noticed them around tbh

I am constantly amazed that people like yourself can have such ardent views on immigrants/assylum seekers without ever having met one (by your own admission).

cabinteelytom

The point... the point is: a grassroots movement of the Irish people could vote through a constitutional amendment, worded, 'only persons entitled to Irish nationality by the articles of this Constitution , shall be granted Irish nationality'.
This would limit the granting of Irish nationality to people born in Ireland, and to those descended from people born in Ireland; who are entitled by other articles of the constitution.
This would end naturalisation through duration of residence, which is contrary to the Irish concept of themselves, and which is currently a perverse incentive to immigration. (Perverse incentive; one that leads to an undesired outcome.)

Reduced immigration would be a benefit to our underclass and long term unemployed who at present are competing for jobs with able, reliable, willing non-nationals who will staff low-paid jobs in order to gain legal nationality of an EU country.

The stereotype that very clever non-nationals are essential to our thrusting knowledge-based economy, and will only accept a contract here if Irish nationality is part of the benefits package, is almost certainly a myth. The figures are shocking.
In the years 2000 to 2006, covering the peak of the boom, the number of people employed in Ireland in internationally traded goods and services actually FELL (by 11,000; from 316,000 to 305,062. See www.finfacts.ie Jun 28, 2007). During the same period the Irish workforce expanded by 430,000 jobs, many occupied by the 400,000+ workers who arrived from abroad.
The evidence is that most of our newly acquired foreign workforce are not adding to our export earnings, and that the 'service industry' jobs they do perform are a result of the boom, not a cause of the boom. We are entitled to ask,'What will be the long term benefits of their arrival?'
The reply will be as silent as Henry Moore's harp.

Conclusion: 'Ecomomic growth', 'developments', 'progress' should be judged by the yardstick; Does this increase the employment opportunities of the people already here?- as a valid measure of the social worth of the development.

I argue that the most effective way for the Irish people to regain control of our labour market ( a natural resource of the people of this island) is a constitutional amendment restricting naturalisation.
'Support the amendment. Support the Constitution'.

segaBOY

menoscemo wrote: »

I am constantly amazed that people like yourself can have such ardent views on immigrants/assylum seekers without ever having met one (by your own admission).

Last year I lived with a woman from Kenya, I was just being sarcastic bud :rolleyes: Have went to school and college with immigrants, don't have a problem with them just saying we need drastic changes to sustain all this influx.

Cannibal Ox

segaBOY wrote:

I think a detention centre is need to speed up this process though.

I think detention centres imply criminality on the people being held there, and I don't think asylum seekers, even illegitimate ones, should be treated like criminals. Besides that, presumibly some of the people in these detention centers are genuine asylum seekers, and would eventually be granted asylum status in Ireland. I'd guess that being stuck in a detention centre for several months would alienate someone from a society before they'd even begun to undertake the process of integrating into that society. Across Europe detention centers haven't stopped asylum seekers, they certaintly haven't speeded up the process (people can be held in centers for several years), the conditions of the centers have been widely criticised and I know at least in Australia, their 'Pacific Policy' was an absolute disaster. I think detention centres are a short term, popular fix with little long term benifit. I also think Ireland's history with interment without trial should be a big enough incentive not to start building detention camps.

cabinteelytom wrote:

The UK has this year ,2008, introduced ten new measures intended to select the more economically desireable (ie qualified) immigrant and obstruct those demographic groups whose visit is more likely to lead to them becoming illegal immigrants. This places Ireland in line to become the next-favoured destination of the disappointed Briton-wannabees of the world

I'm kind of puzzeled about this. You're arguing that the UK's new immigration proposals, based on the positive economic possibility of migrants, will result in less skilled migrants coming to Ireland instead. I'm not sure how you've managed to come to that conclusion. Is it because we're geographically located next to the UK? You do realize that migrants who are rejected tend to be sent back to their country of origin? Or failing that, back to the ports they've come from? Which tend to be in mainland Europe?

cabinteelytom wrote:

Should the rate of immigration of the past ten years continue, the Irish will be a minority in the Republic within 60 years. We are just that vulnerable.

Not if we nationalize migrants based on term of stay I'm also pretty sure that we're the newest state in Western Europe, so I'm not sure where you've gotten this 'oldest nation in Europe' stuff from. Term of stay is a globally accepted concept. Even the Americans, building a fence along their border to prevent migrants, except nationality based on term of stay. I think its perfectly legitimate that if a migrant stays in Ireland for several years, has a job, a family and expresses a desire to stay and work in Ireland and to be Irish, that they should be given Irish citizenship. Also, I thought the constitution was an expression of the Irish peoples cultural identity, subserving it to economic interests seems to me to be...I dunno, against the spirit of the thing.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

And the actual point of this rant is what exactly?

immigrants are stealing our "enter" keys

cabinteelytom

Oldest nation.
Irish king lists , preserved in oral tradition, are lengthy and plausibly go back to around 1600 BC (the eruption of an Icelandic volcano and the consequent 'nuclear winter' could be the mass starvation during the reign of Tigernan).
Monks, contemporaries of St Adomnan, recorded the earliest vernacular literature in Europe- we are talking about centuries before Serbians, Russians, Czechs were invented or even thought of- and referred to themselves and their language as Irish. See the apology at the beginning of the 'Life of St Columba' for writing 'names in our own poor Irish language'.
While the Rep of Ireland was only the second country to leave, forcibly ,the British Empire ( the first was the United States) in 1922; the state of Ireland had a nominal independence, subject to the English crown, and ruled by a minority prior to 1801.
All Irish people would know this.

segaBOY

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Oldest nation.
Irish king lists , preserved in oral tradition, are lengthy and plausibly go back to around 1600 BC (the eruption of an Icelandic volcano and the consequent 'nuclear winter' could be the mass starvation during the reign of Tigernan).
Monks, contemporaries of St Adomnan, recorded the earliest vernacular literature in Europe- we are talking about centuries before Serbians, Russians, Czechs were invented or even thought of- and referred to themselves and their language as Irish. See the apology at the beginning of the 'Life of St Columba' for writing 'names in our own poor Irish language'.
While the Rep of Ireland was only the second country to leave, forcibly ,the British Empire ( the first was the United States) in 1922; the state of Ireland had a nominal independence, subject to the English crown, and ruled by a minority prior to 1801.
All Irish people would know this.

Even though I agree it is important to hold on to our tradition most modern day Irish youth couldn't tell you the significance of Eamonn de Valera or Michael Collins.

I'm more worried bout the social and economic consequences facing into an economic downturn tbh

Cannibal Ox

Irish king lists , preserved in oral tradition, are lengthy and plausibly go back to around 1600 BC (the eruption of an Icelandic volcano and the consequent 'nuclear winter' could be the mass starvation during the reign of Tigernan).

Strictly speaking there wasn't a unified Irish nation until the late 16th century, when most of the island was brought under control of the British. Before that, most of the island was divided into distinct kingdoms with their own rulers.

Monks, contemporaries of St Adomnan, recorded the earliest vernacular literature in Europe- we are talking about centuries before Serbians, Russians, Czechs were invented or even thought of- and referred to themselves and their language as Irish.

Um, Greek, Etruscan? I'm also pretty sure ogham and proto-germanic is older, but then I suppose they're not strictly literature, but inscriptions.

While the Rep of Ireland was only the second country to leave, forcibly ,the British Empire ( the first was the United States) in 1922; the state of Ireland had a nominal independence, subject to the English crown, and ruled by a minority prior to 1801.

Subject to the English crown. It wasn't a state, which is what I think you're arguing? It didn't have sovereignty, so it wasn't a state.

It's also kinda funny to be using a nationality that has been largely constructed by successive periods of immigration (Celts, Vikings, Normans, Brits) to argue against the latest period of immigration

bartholomewbinn

"I think detention centres imply criminality on the people being held there, and I don't think asylum seekers, even illegitimate ones, should be treated like criminals. Besides that, presumibly some of the people in these detention centers are genuine asylum seekers, and would eventually be granted asylum status in Ireland. I'd guess that being stuck in a detention centre for several months would alienate someone from a society before they'd even begun to undertake the process of integrating into that society. Across Europe detention centers haven't stopped asylum seekers, they certaintly haven't speeded up the process (people can be held in centers for several years), the conditions of the centers have been widely criticised and I know at least in Australia, their 'Pacific Policy' was an absolute disaster. I think detention centres are a short term, popular fix with little long term benifit. I also think Ireland's history with interment without trial should be a big enough incentive not to start building detention camps."

Internment without trial was last used in this state in the 1950’s to combat republican terrorism. What that has got to do with detention centres for asylum seekers is totally beyond me. Of course there should be detention centres for asylum seekers; if they are genuine they will not mind the relative inconvenience. It would be far preferable to what they were subjected to where the came from. If they are bogus asylum seekers, nobody really cares what they think anyway. They are simply criminals who have no right to be here in the first place.

FTA69

Strictly speaking there wasn't a unified Irish nation until the late 16th century, when most of the island was brought under control of the British. Before that, most of the island was divided into distinct kingdoms with their own rulers.

Strictly speaking that's b*llocks. The many kingdoms in Ireland weren't particularly distinct at all, they were tuath which were interlinked with each other. These were then associated with a cuige, meaning fifth. A fifth of a greater entity which was often presided over by an Ard Ri (high king) based in Meath.

The Irish people at this time shared a common language, culture and law system. The notion we were simply a shower of disorientated tribesmen until being united by the civilised British is a complete and utter fallacy.

segaBOY

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

"I think detention centres imply criminality on the people being held there, and I don't think asylum seekers, even illegitimate ones, should be treated like criminals. Besides that, presumibly some of the people in these detention centers are genuine asylum seekers, and would eventually be granted asylum status in Ireland. I'd guess that being stuck in a detention centre for several months would alienate someone from a society before they'd even begun to undertake the process of integrating into that society. Across Europe detention centers haven't stopped asylum seekers, they certaintly haven't speeded up the process (people can be held in centers for several years), the conditions of the centers have been widely criticised and I know at least in Australia, their 'Pacific Policy' was an absolute disaster. I think detention centres are a short term, popular fix with little long term benifit. I also think Ireland's history with interment without trial should be a big enough incentive not to start building detention camps."

Internment without trial was last used in this state in the 1950’s to combat republican terrorism. What that has got to do with detention centres for asylum seekers is totally beyond me. Of course there should be detention centres for asylum seekers; if they are genuine they will not mind the relative inconvenience. It would be far preferable to what they were subjected to where the came from. If they are bogus asylum seekers, nobody really cares what they think anyway. They are simply criminals who have no right to be here in the first place.

Completely agree, the Americans, British, Spanish etc all do it, it's the only effeciant way of speeding up our processing system, deporting the illegals and allowing in the genuine asylum seekers.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/only-two-out-of-5000-nigerians-genuine-376886.html


So what actually happened to the 4,998 illegal immigrants? They all get deported? Fat chance.

FTA69

cabinteelytom wrote: »

We are only three and a half million people (to give a world perspective, that's half the population of Israel).

Nonsense. We are five and a half million odd.

Should the rate of immigration of the past ten years continue, the Irish will be a minority in the Republic within 60 years. We are just that vulnerable.
That would be an unneccessary, indeed pointless, ending for the oldest nation in western Europe.

Any statistics for this at all? African and Chinese migrants in Ireland are a minute minority, the likes of the Poles are already beginning to head home due to work calming down.

Let's not go under meekly. Let's make a fight of it. Some of our fellow-countrymen are embarrassed to say,'We want no more immigration;( we need to integrate the one's we already have)'.

Make a fight of what? A few Africans and a smattering of Chinese?

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Of course there should be detention centres for asylum seekers; if they are genuine they will not mind the relative inconvenience.

Yes most people don't mind being imprisoned indefinitely for no reason :rolleyes:

Zombrex

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Should the rate of immigration of the past ten years continue, the Irish will be a minority in the Republic within 60 years. We are just that vulnerable.

If the rate of immigration of the last ten years continues for the next 60 years that would mean our economy continued to grow at the same rate as it has been for the longest period of sustained growth in this history of world economics.

If that happened we would probably all be millionaires and wouldn't give a damn about immigration (who worries about immigration when you summer in Monaco and winter is Aspen)

Of course such an idea is nonsense.

We have already seen a decline in immigrants coming to Ireland since the economic slow down. Put simply immigrants don't migrate to countries that can't offer then jobs and opportunity.

I always find it rather ironic that some people seem to look towards a decrease or reversal of immigration to Ireland as a good thing, something to look forward to. What it actually means is our economy is struggling.

Its ironic because the economy goes down, you lose your job, but you can't blame the immigrants because they have all left :pac: (I joke of course, I'm sure you wouldn't do that)