Time to re evaluate enoch powells "rivers of blood" speech

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

They're perfectly entitled to come here and claim asylum, and they did. Considering the length of time it takes to get processed, the high refusal rate, and the fact that the benefits system is no better than elsewhere, I'd suggest you rethink your notions.

Has the economic, political or human rights situation in Africa improved much in the last 10 years?
I would expect the numbers claiming asylum has remained the same then over the years,
2002 11,000
2011 1,200

Amazing that even though the situation in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia etc has deteriorated greatly our old friends from Nigeria consistently top the asylum seeking list.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though....

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

Has the economic, political or human rights situation in Africa improved much in the last 10 years?
I would expect the numbers claiming asylum has remained the same then over the years,
2002 11,000
2011 1,200

Amazing that even though the situation in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia etc has deteriorated greatly our old friends from Nigeria consistently top the asylum seeking list.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though....

Considering they'd be facing a regime that has the highest refusal rate in Western Europe, its not too suprising.

Why are you so concerned with African asylum seekers when the vast vast vast majority of people arriving in this country have been from the recently admitted EU states?

Bannasidhe

Rawhead wrote: »

Has the economic, political or human rights situation in Africa improved much in the last 10 years?
I would expect the numbers claiming asylum has remained the same then over the years,
2002 11,000
2011 1,200

Amazing that even though the situation in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia etc has deteriorated greatly our old friends from Nigeria consistently top the asylum seeking list.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story though....

You mean like the fact that when one is seeking a refuge and a place to start a new life where one can eventually work, settle down, raise the kids etc etc one may decide to not head for a country whose economy is in the toilet?

What a bizarre notion...

Rawhead

Shenshen wrote: »

Actually, by far the largest numbers of asylum seekers apply for asylum in the UK, France, Norway and Greece.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_product_code=TPS00021

But, you know, as another poster said, don't let facts get in the way of a good notion.

And Ireland isn't "weeks of travel" from anywhere on this planet. Quaint as the notion of poor people dressed in rags chased by political militias and wandering through desserts and swimming through oceans might be, most will actually arrive by plane these days.

Can you show me the flight or airline operating from Ireland to Africa?
You must apply for asylum in the first host country you arrive in according to international law, so unless Ireland has direct flights or a land border with Africa they must have arrived in another part of Europe first.

Don't let the facts......

Shenshen

Oh, as for the "no direct air link to Africa", I just checked, both Aer Lingus and Ryan Air have direct flights to several African countries.

Bannasidhe

Rawhead wrote: »

Can you show me the flight or airline operating from Ireland to Africa?
You must apply for asylum in the first host country you arrive in according to international law, so unless Ireland has direct flights or a land border with Africa they must have arrived in another part of Europe first.

Don't let the facts......

Speaking of facts - still waiting for that proof of our generous benefits for asylum seekers.

Perhaps you should show your links before asking other people to show theirs.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

Can you show me the flight or airline operating from Ireland to Africa?
You must apply for asylum in the first host country you arrive in according to international law, so unless Ireland has direct flights or a land border with Africa they must have arrived in another part of Europe first.

Don't let the facts......

No, you don't.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=1
If you're going to go on about "facts", it would behove you to acquaint yourself with them.

Why are you so concerned with African asylum seekers when the vast vast vast majority of people arriving in this country have been from the recently admitted EU states?

Rawhead

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mean like the fact that when one is seeking a refuge and a place to start a new life where one can eventually work, settle down, raise the kids etc etc one may decide to not head for a country whose economy is in the toilet?

What a bizarre notion...

That is economic migration, big difference from asylum.

Are you writing this in 2006 by any chance, things ain't going great here at the moment or didn't you notice.

No one has put across any argument to counter argument the glaringly obvious fact that the vast majority claiming asylum in the early 2000's where in fact economic migrants taking advantage of our lax and generous welfare system as it was in those days..

golden lane

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Speaking of facts - still waiting for that proof of our generous benefits for asylum seekers.

Perhaps you should show your links before asking other people to show theirs.

free benifits.....that is where you have made no contributions whatsoever.....

can only be described as, overly generous................

Bannasidhe

Rawhead wrote: »

That is economic migration, big difference from asylum.

Are you writing this in 2006 by any chance, things ain't going great here at the moment or didn't you notice.

No one has put across any argument to counter argument the glaringly obvious fact that the vast majority claiming asylum in the early 2000's where in fact economic migrants taking advantage of our lax and generous welfare system as it was in those days..

But did you not say you have no issue with economic migration?

Do try and be consistent.

Still waiting proof of the highlighted bit.

Bannasidhe

golden lane wrote: »

free benifits.....that is where you have made no contributions whatsoever.....

can only be described as, overly generous................

Really - so should we stop paying benefits to everyone who has never made a contribution?

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

That is economic migration, big difference from asylum.

Are you writing this in 2006 by any chance, things ain't going great here at the moment or didn't you notice.

No one has put across any argument to counter argument the glaringly obvious fact that the vast majority claiming asylum in the early 2000's where in fact economic migrants taking advantage of our lax and generous welfare system as it was in those days..

Not going to comment on the Dublin regulation?

Not going to explain why you're so caught up on the Africans?

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

No, you don't.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=1
If you're going to go on about "facts", it would behove you to acquaint yourself with them.

Why are you so concerned with African asylum seekers when the vast vast vast majority of people arriving in this country have been from the recently admitted EU states?

I fully acknowledge that the vast amount of stories about free cars, prams etc are dung and that asylum seekers get only the bare essentials today.
The problem I have is with people like yourself who continue to ignore or deny that the system was willfully and systematically abused in the early 00's by the vast majority of people who used it.
Conditions have continued to deteriorate in Africa yet the amount of people seeking asylum has reduced by 90%.

Why is that?

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

I fully acknowledge that the vast amount of stories about free cars, prams etc are dung and that asylum seekers get only the bare essentials today.
The problem I have is with people like yourself who continue to ignore or deny that the system was willfully and systematically abused in the early 00's by the vast majority of people who used it.
Conditions have continued to deteriorate in Africa yet the amount of people seeking asylum has reduced by 90%.

Why is that?

Because we now have the most restrictive regime in Western Europe.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-has-strictest-asylum-seeker-regime-149717.html

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Rawhead wrote: »

We have no direct air, sea or land links with Africa. You can call everyone a racist and spout all the usual left wing ****e you want, but the simple fact remains that a large proportion of the asylum seekers who came to Ireland did so because of our generous benefit system at the time. The fact that the situation in large parts of Africa has got progressively worse in the last ten years yet the number of asylum seekers from Africa has drastically reduced suggests that the tightening up on the asylum process has deterred "asylum tourists".
The fact that a large proportion of asylum seekers passed through as many as 10 countries en route to Ireland clearly suggests a cherry picking with regards the country they claimed asylum in. It has always baffled me why the smallest country on the farthest western reaches of Europe with the climate least like Africa would attract so many of its population.

Vitually no one came to Ireland as an asylum seeker. They were allowed to come based on the legal situation at the time.

And to be honest i am sick of hearing it.

Do you know how many illegal Irish people there are in New York?

And the Govt is campaigning for their rights.

Most immigrants here are from Eastern Europe.

So they were asylum seekers so what? So the system tightened up so what?

It's still racist and it's one of the most vile characteristics in this country.

You don't hear people complaining about German immigrants in the west.

It is so sickeningly obvious why you focus on the very few African people rather than the majority of Europeans.

It is because they are black.

I don't care if they sign on the moment they get here....your still racist....lots of Irish people cheat the dole here and abroad.
They come here because they want to live here and enjoy all the rights of Irish citizens ..good luck to them..we need more diversity and fewer racists.

Rawhead

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But did you not say you have no issue with economic migration?

Do try and be consistent.

Still waiting proof of the highlighted bit.

2002 11,634
2011 1,290

Nodin wrote: »

Not going to comment on the Dublin regulation?

Not going to explain why you're so caught up on the Africans?

2002 11,634
2011 1,290

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

Because we now have the most restrictive regime in Western Europe.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-has-strictest-asylum-seeker-regime-149717.html

Because we are not a soft touch anymore.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

2002 11,634
2011 1,290



2002 11,634
2011 1,290

I showed you the link regarding odds of gaining entry.

You still haven't explained why you're so caught up on the Africans, given the vast numbers of Europeans that arrived here.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

Because we are not a soft touch anymore.

So France, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the rest are a "soft touch"? Fascinating.

Rawhead

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

Vitually no one came to Ireland as an asylum seeker. They were allowed to come based on the legal situation at the time.

And to be honest i am sick of hearing it.

Do you know how many illegal Irish people there are in New York?

And the Govt is campaigning for their rights.

Most immigrants here are from Eastern Europe.

So they were asylum seekers so what? So the system tightened up so what?

It's still racist and it's one of the most vile characteristics in this country.

You don't hear people complaining about German immigrants in the west.

It is so sickeningly obvious why you focus on the very few African people rather than the majority of Europeans.

It is because they are black.

I don't care if they sign on the moment they get here....your still racist....lots of Irish people cheat the dole here and abroad.
They come here because they want to live here and enjoy all the rights of Irish citizens ..good luck to them..we need more diversity and fewer racists.

Nice one, took a while to come round to it but you got there in the end.
How dare we question anything, no matter how absurd it is.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

Nice one, took a while to come round to it but you got there in the end.
How dare we question anything, no matter how absurd it is.

Well, maybe if you weren't so reluctant to explain your obsession with Africans, given the hundreds of thousands of Europeans who arrived here......

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

Because we now have the most restrictive regime in Western Europe.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-has-strictest-asylum-seeker-regime-149717.html

Why did we feel the need to introduce such a strict regime,
As for my quoting Africa so often, I have a problem with anyone coming here illegally, not just Africans. The Poles, Latvians etc are here legally.
I have no problem with economic migration and did it myself, and I don't really care about skin colour, religon or race.
I do however have a problem with fraud and deceit, and the vast majority of people who came through the asylum system did so fraudulently.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

Why did we feel the need to introduce such a strict regime,.

Thats an interesting question, and one often brought up in the courts.

Rawhead wrote: »

As for my quoting Africa so often, I have a problem with anyone coming here illegally, not just Africans. The Poles, Latvians etc are here legally.
I have no problem with economic migration and did it myself, and I don't really care about skin colour, religon or race.
I do however have a problem with fraud and deceit, and the vast majority of people who came through the asylum system did so fraudulently.

So you are saying that those who were granted citizenship should not have been. Grand.

You've some proof of that?

Rawhead

Strange man knocks on your door at 3am during a storm and asks for shelter.
You live at the end of a lane with 10 houses before yours.
Some of these houses are bigger than yours.
Some of these houses are more comfortable than yours.
All the houses are warm and have ample food.
You know all the people who own these houses and they would have all taken in a person on a stormy night.
So why did the stranger walk all the way past those 10 houses on such a wild stormy night and pick yours?

If you ask why the stranger picked your house then you are a filthy racist and will be badgered and abused till you stop thinking that way....

profitius

Rawhead wrote: »

Nice one, took a while to come round to it but you got there in the end.
How dare we question anything, no matter how absurd it is.

People have belief systems that they get from TV, the media, parents etc. Asking questions that goes against their world view is always likely to cause a big reaction. Its like the old times when people were not allowed to say the world was round.

karma_

Rawhead wrote: »

Strange man knocks on your door at 3am during a storm and asks for shelter.
You live at the end of a lane with 10 houses before yours.
Some of these houses are bigger than yours.
Some of these houses are more comfortable than yours.
All the houses are warm and have ample food.
You know all the people who own these houses and they would have all taken in a person on a stormy night.
So why did the stranger walk all the way past those 10 houses on such a wild stormy night and pick yours?

If you ask why the stranger picked your house then you are a filthy racist and will be badgered and abused till you stop thinking that way....

This is the worst analogy I have EVER read.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

Strange man (.....) thinking that way....

You're trying to tell us something I take it.

profitus wrote:

People have belief systems that they get from TV, the media, parents etc. Asking questions that goes against their world view is always likely to cause a big reaction. Its like the old times when people were not allowed think the world was round....

You going to start going on about the Jews again?

Rawhead

karma_ wrote: »

This is the worst analogy I have EVER read.

I'm quite pleased with it actually.....

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

I'm quite pleased with it actually.....

Well, if we do figure out who is trapped by the Bush fire and where they are, it'll have done its job nicely.

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

You're trying to tell us something I take it.

I see what your trying to do here, "Birth of a Nation" type of big black man scaring innocent little white girl stereotype. Very good, your sociology lecturer would be proud.
You can replace the man for a woman or a child, still doesn't make it any easier to explain why the last house was chosen

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

Well, if we do figure out who is trapped by the Bush fire and where they are, it'll have done its job nicely.

I know it's a bit simple but seeing as getting ye to explain why a "refugee" from Africa fleeing in terror would ignore half a dozen countries offering refuge and continue on to Ireland is such a problem I thought the analogy might help.

token101

Rawhead wrote: »

I know it's a bit simple but seeing as getting ye to explain why a "refugee" from Africa fleeing in terror would ignore half a dozen countries offering refuge and continue on to Ireland is such a problem I thought the analogy might help.

They don't though? France has 10,000's of African immigrants, as does Holland, Belgium and almost every other West European state. And they have been getting them for a lot longer than Ireland, you need only look at their national teams to see that. France predominantly gets North Africans and West Africans because they're former colonies and they speak French in those places, makes it easier. The reason larger numbers of Nigerians come here and to the UK than to other European countries is because the predominant language in Nigeria is English and there is a large community of Nigerians here and in the UK already. Again, makes it easier. It's the same reason I'm going to Australia like 10,000's more like me and the same reason that the Irish have gone to every other English speaking country in droves. Why would someone take the time to learn Italian or German or Spanish or Portuguese when they could just as easily go somewhere else where the same language is spoken?

OurLadyofKnock

I can't believe we got through this thread without mentioning swans being eaten once.

Rawhead

token101 wrote: »

They don't though? France has 10,000's of African immigrants, as does Holland, Belgium and almost every other West European state. And they have been getting them for a lot longer than Ireland, you need only look at their national teams to see that. France predominantly gets North Africans and West Africans because they're former colonies and they speak French in those places, makes it easier. The reason larger numbers of Nigerians come here and to the UK than to other European countries is because the predominant language in Nigeria is English and there is a large community of Nigerians here and in the UK already. Again, makes it easier. It's the same reason I'm going to Australia like 10,000's more like me and the same reason that the Irish have gone to every other English speaking country in droves. Why would someone take the time to learn Italian or German or Spanish or Portuguese when they could just as easily go somewhere else where the same language is spoken?

Where was this large Nigerian community hiding before the late 90's?

All the countries you mention have colonial ties with Africa, where are our ties?

Why did all those people bypass all those countries with strong African connections and come all the way to Ireland?

You are going to Australia legally I presume? You applied for a visa and are going with the clear intention of working I take it.

There must be a reason that made this country so appealing apart from our weather.

golden lane

Rawhead wrote: »

I'm quite pleased with it actually.....

great post.......ignore the free speech haters....

they will all go to heaven.........yuk!!!!!!

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

I know it's a bit simple but seeing as getting ye to explain why a "refugee" from Africa fleeing in terror would ignore half a dozen countries offering refuge and continue on to Ireland is such a problem I thought the analogy might help.

By your lights, no-one would apply to either America or Australia for asylum. They're perfectly entitled to apply here, they did, and some got in.

Now, do please tell us your evidence (with sources) showing that those who were granted citizenship are fraudsters.

karma_

golden lane wrote: »

great post.......ignore the free speech haters....

they will all go to heaven.........yuk!!!!!!

We don't hate free speech, we approve of it. It would be harder to spot the closet racists if they didn't out themselves in such fashion.

token101

Rawhead wrote: »

Where was this large Nigerian community hiding before the late 90's?

Why does that matter? What are you trying to suggest? Is it that Africans are coming here to get SW? They can't claim until they are citizens, until then they are given about 20 quid a week, enough to subsist upon. The acceptance rate for asylum is about 1%, if I remember correctly. Can you show me any evidence that there's mass fraud in the SW system by Africans? It's bull**** really.

Rawhead wrote: »

All the countries you mention have colonial ties with Africa, where are our ties?

Britain doesn't have colonial ties to Nigeria? Nor does Switzerland or Italy, at least to the countries that their immigrants come from.

Rawhead wrote: »

Why did all those people bypass all those countries with strong African connections and come all the way to Ireland?

I though I just explained they didn't FFS! They are fairly spread over Europe, we have a relatively small amount. In fact, after a very brief Google search, we don't even feature here.

Rawhead wrote: »

You are going to Australia legally I presume? You applied for a visa and are going with the clear intention of working I take it.

Yes, but there are plenty of Irish working illegally there but even more so in the States, where they the support of ****loads of people here and some very powerful people in US politics. It's not just an African thing if that's what you're getting at. Also, there's nothing illegal about going somewhere and trying to claim asylum.

Rawhead wrote: »

There must be a reason that made this country so appealing apart from our weather.

An English speaking country with an excellent standard of living with good employment prospects (at that time anyway). I'd imagine Nigerians talk about Ireland and Europe the way we talk about Australia.

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

By your lights, no-one would apply to either America or Australia for asylum. They're perfectly entitled to apply here, they did, and some got in.

Now, do please tell us your evidence (with sources) showing that those who were granted citizenship are fraudsters.

If the government felt that the large numbers of people coming here claiming asylum where genuine and that large scale fraud wasn't taking place then I'm sure they wouldn't have gone to the trouble and cost of changing the law and holding a referendum (the people voted 4-1 in favour of revoking the automatic right to citizenship) to address the issue.
I'm sure there where some genuine people claiming asylum but I'd guess they where in the minority. The amount of people applying these days would be far more realistic and genuine I'd guess.
Now I'm off to bleach my hood, those pillow cases don't whiten themselves.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

If the government(......)cases don't whiten themselves.

You keep skipping round the issue. Thousands have been turned away, so whether or not they were genuine is - for the purposes of this discussion, -irrelevant. You, however, seem to be implying that those who were granted citizenship should not have been. Now, have the courage of your convictions to back that up.

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

You keep skipping round the issue. Thousands have been turned away, so whether or not they were genuine is - for the purposes of this discussion, -irrelevant. You, however, seem to be implying that those who were granted citizenship should not have been. Now, have the courage of your convictions to back that up.

I have not said that people who where granted citizenship in this country should not have been. I have said before and I'll say it again, anyone who comes to this country legally is more than welcome as long as they are willing to abide by the laws, race, colour or creed don't matter.

You however seem to ignore the fact that 10,000's of people where found to be abusing a system that was set up to help people in genuine need.
For the purposes of this discussion to ignore that fact is insane.

This country never had to deal with immigration and we where caught completely unawares when immigration did start happening. We treated the first people who arrived here claiming asylum very well and the vast majority who initially arrived where probably genuine. Word spread that Ireland was a soft touch though and people then began to arrive who exploited the system. By then a country that was 99.9% white experienced a huge influx of people who where predominately black and of course this was a major shock.
The government did what it always did and over compensated which resulted in us going from being the most lax to the most harsh with regards asylum.

Am I wrong about that?

Shenshen

Rawhead wrote: »

Strange man knocks on your door at 3am during a storm and asks for shelter.
You live at the end of a lane with 10 houses before yours.
Some of these houses are bigger than yours.
Some of these houses are more comfortable than yours.
All the houses are warm and have ample food.
You know all the people who own these houses and they would have all taken in a person on a stormy night.
So why did the stranger walk all the way past those 10 houses on such a wild stormy night and pick yours?

If you ask why the stranger picked your house then you are a filthy racist and will be badgered and abused till you stop thinking that way....

I would assume they came from the other end of the road. What difference does it make?

Pherekydes

Rawhead wrote: »

I have not said that people who where granted citizenship in this country should not have been. I have said before and I'll say it again, anyone who comes to this country legally is more than welcome as long as they are willing to abide by the laws, race, colour or creed don't matter.

You however seem to ignore the fact that 10,000's of people where found to be abusing a system that was set up to help people in genuine need.
For the purposes of this discussion to ignore that fact is insane.

This country never had to deal with immigration and we where caught completely unawares when immigration did start happening. We treated the first people who arrived here claiming asylum very well and the vast majority who initially arrived where probably genuine. Word spread that Ireland was a soft touch though and people then began to arrive who exploited the system. By then a country that was 99.9% white experienced a huge influx of people who where predominately black and of course this was a major shock.
The government did what it always did and over compensated which resulted in us going from being the most lax to the most harsh with regards asylum.

Am I wrong about that?

Yes. Ireland is currently about 95.9% white, and of the remaining, only 27% are black. As I've said earlier in the thread, most African immigrants are not asylum seekers. They are here to work. And settle. Permanently. Time to build a bridge.

Ulysses Gaze

When he used phraseology such as 'grinning pickanninies' in a political speech, in 1960's Britain after he had backed Pakistani/Indian and West Indian immigrants arriving to the UK in the 1950's for economic purposes...then he not only exposed himself as a racist but also a damn hypocrite.

The speech was so off the wall he was sacked by Ted Heath the next day.

Nodin

Rawhead wrote: »

..............

Am I wrong about that?

We went from being in line with the European average, as far as I recall, to being the strictest, as I pointed out earlier.

And again, unless you're saying that people who shouldn't have been granted citizenship were, I don't see what your problem is.

Rawhead

Good job you nerds don't have many mates. If you ever formed a political party you would be dangerous. What with making goatees compulsory, banning sports and replacing organised religion with dungeons and dragons this would be a tough place to live.
Thankfully your crippling social awkwardness, horrendous personal hygiene and inability to live away from mammy should preclude ye from anything beyond Boyd Barrett like status.

Pherekydes

Haha.

Bye bye now...

Rawhead

Nodin wrote: »

We went from being in line with the European average, as far as I recall, to being the strictest, as I pointed out earlier.

And again, unless you're saying that people who shouldn't have been granted citizenship were, I don't see what your problem is.

I am the one who has the weight of national law being changed, a constitutional referendum being held and a Immigration Bureau being formed to back up my statement that mass defrauding of our immigration laws took place.

Apart from a sense of smug self righteousness what have you to back up your argument that it wasn't?

El Weirdo

Rawhead wrote: »

Good job you nerds don't have many mates. If you ever formed a political party you would be dangerous. What with making goatees compulsory, banning sports and replacing organised religion with dungeons and dragons this would be a tough place to live.
Thankfully your crippling social awkwardness, horrendous personal hygiene and inability to live away from mammy should preclude ye from anything beyond Boyd Barrett like status.

Banned.

Higher

Rawhead wrote: »

Good job you nerds don't have many mates. If you ever formed a political party you would be dangerous. What with making goatees compulsory, banning sports and replacing organised religion with dungeons and dragons this would be a tough place to live.
Thankfully your crippling social awkwardness, horrendous personal hygiene and inability to live away from mammy should preclude ye from anything beyond Boyd Barrett like status.

To be honest, I've never met a racist who isn't either extraordinarily sexually frustrated or going nowhere in life. Normally they were both.

As I'm sure you don't consider yourself a racist then this doesn't apply to you.....

Bye now