Child refugees -majority to be males aged 17???

Mary63

There is no law in Morocco or Tunisia.

The Tunisian authorities knew the Berlin terrorist was one of their citizens and they refused to help the Germans to have him deported.He was on a known terrorist list and the Germans had to release him because they couldn't prove where he was from.If they had sent the Germans his passport when it was requested he would have been on the first flight out of Germany,,its absolutely terrible for the families of the people he murdered to come to terms with this.

Trump said what he intended to do while running for election and the American people voted him in.We are so used to politicians breaking their promises it is quite surprising to see a President doing what he was elected to do.If the European authorities had got their act together and banned a every undocumented person from entering the EU we wouldn't have had so many dead in Paris and Berlin and Brussels.We have plenty of Muslims who have spent their entire life in Europe ready to murder their colleagues, and neighbours but they don't need to be helped by others travelling freely through Europe on false papers.

The German Police took hundreds of North African men off trains this new years eve, they fitted the profile of the people who assaulted German women last year so no way was this happening again.There was no evidence the people taken off the trains were going to sexually assault women but are you saying better to wait until they did bubble pop, why should the rights of these men take precedence over the rights of women not to be raped.

Stheno

Mary63 wrote: »

There is no law in Morocco or Tunisia.

The Tunisian authorities knew the Berlin terrorist was one of their citizens and they refused to help the Germans to have him deported.

Have you a link to prove that there Mary?

dissed doc

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/zappone-seeks-urgent-review-of-pre-clearance-at-irish-airports-1.2956071


This is a move in the right direction, all the countries black listed are the ones where the future terrorists will come from once ISIS is eliminated.

I completely agree. The Irish DFA clearly lists the countries as being highly dangerous, and that no Irish national should travel there. If you do, you should be heavily screened.

It is also just like OBama did. He banned Iraq citizens for 6 months. No upset, no whining entitlement cry-episodes.

Zappone would probably like to finish with US pre-clearance as she is worried it may limit her ability to move in unchecked nationals of countries with high risk of terrorist events that otherwise wouldn't be allowed in.

gitzy16v

bubblypop wrote: »

LOL! Clearly you haven't been on a beach in Spain for many years!
The fact you think there is no law in Tunisia or Morocco is just embarrassing for you. You really don't need to be afraid, I have been to Morocco solo, and haven't been raped or murdered yet!

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0628/711121-tunisia-attack/

Anybody coming from that country has to be extremely well vetted.

There's plenty more to that story.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tunisia-terrorist-beach-massacre-inquest-9631533.amp?client=ms-android-htc-rev


And this has Tunisia wrote all over it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/24/europe/anis-amri-berlin-attack-milan/index.html

I'd be watching Tunisia closely if recent events are anything to go by.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

LOL! Clearly you haven't been on a beach in Spain for many years!
The fact you think there is no law in Tunisia or Morocco is just embarrassing for you. You really don't need to be afraid, I have been to Morocco solo, and haven't been raped or murdered yet!

Hmm. Not quite the Utopia you experienced.

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=17374

Crime statistics for Tunisia in 2013 reflect a continued stream of criminal activity. According to official statistics (for the country as a whole), theft and property crimes showed a slight decrease from 2013 to 2014, while there was a marked increase in the number of financial crimes/scams during that same period. A significant rate of violent (homicides, sexual assaults, personal robberies, residential break-ins) and nonviolent (financial scams, vehicle thefts, petty drug offenses) crimes exists in Tunis and other large/tourist cities.


Political Violence Rating: High

Terrorism Rating: High

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19236

Harassment of women is somewhat prevalent in both urban and rural areas. In 2Moroccan men will often engage in whistling/hissing/staring/yelling and, on occasion, inappropriate physical contact. Attempts to coax women into cars does occur with some frequency in the smaller cities and rural areas. In 2015, there was an uptick in reports of sexual assaults and rapes. Incidents of assaults and harassment typically affect woman who are walking alone at night. However, assaults have also taken place in broad daylight and at public events with many witnesses, though these incidents are rare. Legislation has been enacted to punish any form of sexual harassment; however, the law is new, and authorities are still trying to determine how best to enforce it.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons may face a great deal of pressure/discrimination. While there is a perceived level of tolerance, homosexuality is illegal, and open displays of affection will attract unwanted attention.

rgossip30

dissed doc wrote: »

I completely agree. The Irish DFA clearly lists the countries as being highly dangerous, and that no Irish national should travel there. If you do, you should be heavily screened.

It is also just like OBama did. He banned Iraq citizens for 6 months. No upset, no whining entitlement cry-episodes.

Zappone would probably like to finish with US pre-clearance as she is worried it may limit her ability to move in unchecked nationals of countries with high risk of terrorist events that otherwise wouldn't be allowed in.

I think its getting forgotten the USA is at war in that region .The EU is not active there so taking in people is easier .

dissed doc

bubblypop wrote: »

But it's ridiculous to suggest that because some North African men committed crime, that we should ban ALL North African men.
It doesn't make sense to me at all that anyone can judge millions of people by the actions of a handful.
I judge people on their actions, not the actions of others.

The only North African country listed is Libya.

Here is the DFA Ireland's assessment:

"Security Status
We advise Irish citizens against all travel to Libya. Irish citizens in Libya are advised to leave immediately by commercial means"

"Latest Travel Alert
Due to the ongoing fighting and the risk of kidnapping or terrorist attacks throughout the country, the situation in Libya remains very dangerous. On 23 December 2016 a domestic flight from Sabha to Tripoli was hijacked and diverted to Malta."

"Security
Due to the ongoing fighting and the risk of kidnapping or terrorist attacks throughout the country, the situation in Libya remains very dangerous. The situation throughout the country remains dangerous and unpredictable. Fighting continues in many parts of Libya. It can be unclear in some areas which faction has control. This fighting includes extremist groups such as Ansar Al Sharia and affiliates of Da’esh and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQ-M).
We advise Irish citizens in Libya to leave immediately by commercial means."


If you are a dual Ireland and Libya passport holder, and despite those warnings arrive back on a plane from Libya to Dublin, I think you should be pretty much detained ASAP!!

Saying you are going on holidays doesn't cut the mustard. You were warned, it is recognised as very dangerous, and yet you still go? Why? No UN-mandated NGO participation. A dual passport holder coming back from a known warzone *IS* the person that becomes radicalised as a terrorist - that is who Trump is trying to stop. They use the warzones as training practice, come back to Europe or US, and shoot up a shopping mall, concert hall or drive a truck over people. That is basically what is happening at the moment.

gitzy16v

dissed doc wrote: »

I completely agree. The Irish DFA clearly lists the countries as being highly dangerous, and that no Irish national should travel there. If you do, you should be heavily screened.

It is also just like OBama did. He banned Iraq citizens for 6 months. No upset, no whining entitlement cry-episodes.

Zappone would probably like to finish with US pre-clearance as she is worried it may limit her ability to move in unchecked nationals of countries with high risk of terrorist events that otherwise wouldn't be allowed in.

All them lads coming over with Zappone will be gone to England in a week,and we'll be left paying for ghosts.

ancapailldorcha

Mary63, do not post in this thread again.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

You can't identify people who are intending on committing crime!!!
Luckily in this country we wait till people actually commit a crime before punishing them.

Grand. So, we'll let in known ISIS fighters, and punish them after they've killed a few Europeans - because that's preferable to identifying them before we let them in, and consider the risk to be unacceptable?

I don't think the victims of ISIS terrorists would agree with your reasoning. Do you?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Grand. So, we'll let in known ISIS fighters, and punish them after they've killed a few Europeans - because that's preferable to identifying them before we let them in, and consider the risk to be unacceptable?

I don't think the victims of ISIS terrorists would agree with your reasoning. Do you?

Known ISIS fighters are clearly committing a crime, they are part of an organised terrorist group and as such would not be admitted into Ireland.

gitzy16v

bubblypop wrote: »

Known ISIS fighters are clearly committing a crime, they are part of an organised terrorist group and as such would not be admitted into Ireland.

And therefore would be detained in the compulsory checkpoint of people from that region on arrival.

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

Grand. So, we'll let in known ISIS fighters, and punish them after they've killed a few Europeans - because that's preferable to identifying them before we let them in, and consider the risk to be unacceptable?

I don't think the victims of ISIS terrorists would agree with your reasoning. Do you?

I think the distinction should be made between *punishing* someone for a crime they *might* potentially commit, and trying to identify the people who pose risks.

I think the latter is vitally important.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

You can't identify people who are intending on committing crime!!!
Luckily in this country we wait till people actually commit a crime before punishing them.

bubblypop wrote: »

Known ISIS fighters are clearly committing a crime, they are part of an organised terrorist group and as such would not be admitted into Ireland.

Ah! So, you can identify people who are intending on committing crime - in some circumstances, at least.

Now, how do you identify the known ISIS fighter if they are not carrying any ID?

You can't! So, do we let them in anyway, and allow them to commit an atrocity? The kicker is, we can't actually keep them out, if they claim asylum.

It would be really nice if this situation was conveniently black and white.
It's not.

It's wrong to refuse whatever help we can give to genuine refugees.
It's wrong to stand idly by and let ISIS members terrorize Europe.

Just to really make it tough - some genuine Syrian refugees are ISIS fighters.

How do we solve that one, do you think?

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

I think the distinction should be made between *punishing* someone for a crime they *might* potentially commit, and trying to identify the people who pose risks.

I think the latter is vitally important.

Of course. But then, I didn't suggest punishing someone for a crime they might potentially commit. I asked how you would identify someone coming here with the express intention of committing a crime.

An ISIS member intent on committing an atrocity would be well worth identifying in advance. The idea that I was suggesting punishing someone because they "might" commit a crime was entirely Bubblypops..

The same reasoning actually applies to those with criminal histories, by the way. Which is why Australia, America, etc. do not issue visas to "undesirables". The risk, based on the previous character of the person, is considered too high.

Authorities are doing all they can to vet potential refugees coming to Ireland.
Obviously if we know they are ISIS they can be stopped.
There is no justification in blocking all Syrians from Ireland because some, may, be ISIS.
Surely this is completely obvious.

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course. But then, I didn't suggest punishing someone for a crime they might potentially commit. I asked how you would identify someone coming here with the express intention of committing a crime.

An ISIS member intent on committing an atrocity would be well worth identifying in advance. The idea that I was suggesting punishing someone because they "might" commit a crime was entirely Bubblypops..

The same reasoning actually applies to those with criminal histories, by the way. Which is why Australia, America, etc. do not issue visas to "undesirables". The risk, based on the previous character of the person, is considered too high.

You certainly didn't. I'm sorry it seemed like that was aimed at you. I had in mind Bubblypop's point about punishing people preemptively and then wanted to agree with your point because it resolved some uncertainty I had about that..I hope that makes sense. Time for a Boards break, I think

alastair

dissed doc wrote: »

The only North African country listed is Libya.

Here is the DFA Ireland's assessment:

"Security Status
We advise Irish citizens against all travel to Libya. Irish citizens in Libya are advised to leave immediately by commercial means"

"Latest Travel Alert
Due to the ongoing fighting and the risk of kidnapping or terrorist attacks throughout the country, the situation in Libya remains very dangerous. On 23 December 2016 a domestic flight from Sabha to Tripoli was hijacked and diverted to Malta."

"Security
Due to the ongoing fighting and the risk of kidnapping or terrorist attacks throughout the country, the situation in Libya remains very dangerous. The situation throughout the country remains dangerous and unpredictable. Fighting continues in many parts of Libya. It can be unclear in some areas which faction has control. This fighting includes extremist groups such as Ansar Al Sharia and affiliates of Da’esh and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQ-M).
We advise Irish citizens in Libya to leave immediately by commercial means."


If you are a dual Ireland and Libya passport holder, and despite those warnings arrive back on a plane from Libya to Dublin, I think you should be pretty much detained ASAP!!

Saying you are going on holidays doesn't cut the mustard. You were warned, it is recognised as very dangerous, and yet you still go? Why? No UN-mandated NGO participation. A dual passport holder coming back from a known warzone *IS* the person that becomes radicalised as a terrorist - that is who Trump is trying to stop. They use the warzones as training practice, come back to Europe or US, and shoot up a shopping mall, concert hall or drive a truck over people. That is basically what is happening at the moment.

The DFA doesn't (and shouldn't) have any warnings about returning from Libya. There are plenty of reasons why a dual Irish/Libyan citizen might choose to travel to Libya - the obvious one being family visits. The notion that you round up anyone who has dared to come back from a state that the DFA issues travel advisories for is just a tad hysterical. Note also that US citizens who travel to any of the Trump-ban states are not restricted from re-entering the US either, so your rather bizarre defence of Trump's intentions really makes no sense.

gitzy16v

alastair wrote: »

The DFA doesn't (and shouldn't) have any warnings about returning from Libya. There are plenty of reasons why a duel Irish/Libyan citizen might choose to travel to Libya - the obvious one being family visits. The notion that you round yo anyone who has dared to come back from a state that the DFA issues travel advisories for is just a tad hysterical. Note also that US citizens who travel to any of the Trump-ban states are not restricted from re-entering the US either, so your rather bizarre defence of Trump's intentions really makes no sense.

But if they are dual citizens,thats a problem then?

Have they arrived yet in Roscommon? If not why not?

alastair

gitzy16v wrote: »

But if they are dual citizens,thats a problem then?

No. If they hold dual US/banned state citizenship, they're not being blocked from re-entering the US. That's according to the State Department. The same is true for a number of other dual citizenship holders - UK and Canadian citizens specifically - though this is clear as mud.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Authorities are doing all they can to vet potential refugees coming to Ireland.
Obviously if we know they are ISIS they can be stopped.
There is no justification in blocking all Syrians from Ireland because some, may, be ISIS.
Surely this is completely obvious.

Let me quote what I posted again:

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah! So, you can identify people who are intending on committing crime - in some circumstances, at least.

Now, how do you identify the known ISIS fighter if they are not carrying any ID?

You can't! So, do we let them in anyway, and allow them to commit an atrocity? The kicker is, we can't actually keep them out, if they claim asylum.

It would be really nice if this situation was conveniently black and white.
It's not.

It's wrong to refuse whatever help we can give to genuine refugees.
It's wrong to stand idly by and let ISIS members terrorize Europe.

Just to really make it tough - some genuine Syrian refugees are ISIS fighters.

How do we solve that one, do you think?

Hmm. No suggestion of blocking all Syrians. Quite the opposite.
Followed by a list of difficulties, and a request for your opinion on how we could solve them.

How, in any way, does that equate to blocking all Syrians from Ireland?
And do you have any suggestions?

Widdershins wrote: »

You certainly didn't. I'm sorry it seemed like that was aimed at you. I had in mind Bubblypop's point about punishing people preemptively and then wanted to agree with your point because it resolved some uncertainty I had about that..I hope that makes sense. Time for a Boards break, I think

No worries, Widdershins. You made a valid point, so I thought I should clear it up for the benefit of any reader not familiar with my posting history.

Please don't take a Boards break on my account. I enjoy your posts, and understood your reason for posting!:D

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me quote what I posted again:



Hmm. No suggestion of blocking all Syrians. Quite the opposite.
Followed by a list of difficulties, and a request for your opinion on how we could solve them.

How, in any way, does that equate to blocking all Syrians from Ireland?
And do you have any suggestions?



No worries, Widdershins. You made a valid point, so I thought I should clear it up for the benefit of any reader not familiar with my posting history.

Please don't take a Boards break on my account. I enjoy your posts, and understood your reason for posting!:D

Not on your account, just the -possibly deliberate- tendency of other people to misunderstand and misrepresent people especially on these threads. If I start inadvertently annoying posters I like, I'll know I just can't put the necessary effort into wording a post carefully enough to overcome the inherent deficiencies of expressing myself in text format. I'm glad I haven't given you an unintended impression/offense

rgossip30

Deleted User wrote: »

Have they arrived yet in Roscommon? If not why not?

Why the rush ?

jmayo

bubblypop wrote: »

But it's ridiculous to suggest that because some North African men committed crime, that we should ban ALL North African men.
It doesn't make sense to me at all that anyone can judge millions of people by the actions of a handful.
I judge people on their actions, not the actions of others.

If someone arrives with no proof of identity, claiming to be someone or something that can't be proven or disproven because no official confirmation can be obtained from their supposed home state then they should not get in.
Fullstop.

Why are all these "refugees" turning up with absolutely no proof of identity.

I always go back to one of the most famous of these supposed refugee minors, good old Mr anis Amri.
He dumped his documents before he arrived in Lampedusa and then claimed he was a minor.

See how well letting him in worked out for Europe.

Stheno wrote: »

Have you a link to prove that there Mary?

If I show you the Telegraph or Breitbard you will of course rubbish it so here is the good old Guardian.

See the bottom section in Bold.

Arriving on Sicily, having deliberately discarded his personal documents, he pretended to be an underage refugee. At the school he attended in Catania, Amri drew attention to himself for repeated incidents of petty theft and physical abuse.

He had also set fire to his housing on Lampedusa in an apparent protest over the authorities’ slowness in dealing with his asylum application. He received a four-year prison sentence.
...

Amri arrived in Germany in July 2015, reportedly claiming to be a politically persecuted Egyptian, according to Ralf Jäger, the interior minister of the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia.
...

His asylum application was rejected this summer, stamped with the explanation that it was “offensichtlich unbegründet”, or obviously groundless, because of his inability to prove to the authorities that he was Egyptian.
...

Yet again, however, his deportation could not be carried out because he possessed no valid personal documents. He denied being Tunisian, and the Tunisian authorities initially refused to accept he was one of their citizens.

Eventually, in August, after much bureaucratic to-ing and fro-ing, the Tunisian authorities agreed to send him a replacement passport. The papers from Tunis that would have validated his deportation arrived in Germany two days after the Berlin attack. Under normal circumstances, he would have been extradited before the end of the year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/23/anis-amri-from-young-drifter-to-europes-most-wanted-man

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

Not on your account, just the -possibly deliberate- tendency of other people to misunderstand and misrepresent people especially on these threads. If I start inadvertently annoying posters I like, I'll know I just can't put the necessary effort into wording a post carefully enough to overcome the inherent deficiencies of expressing myself in text format. I'm glad I haven't given you an unintended impression/offense

I had noticed that, too.

My own opinion is that some posters (and I'm being careful not to name any), deliberately misrepresent posts, in the certain knowledge that what they allege will have to be refuted.

It's a useful technique when they have no defense to what was actually posted, and are hoping to steer the discussion down another route.
"Attack is the best form of defense" seems to be the methodology used.

My own opinion is that it's a dishonest, and inferior style of debate - and, indeed, there is little point in debating with people who, when faced with facts, refuse to either counter with facts, or, indeed, acknowledge the truth in any way.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" comes to mind - and that is being charitable, and not accusing anyone of having a hidden agenda.....which is, of course, impossible to moderate!

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

If someone arrives with no proof of identity, claiming to be someone or something that can't be proven or disproven because no official confirmation can be obtained from their supposed home state then they should not get in.
Fullstop.

Why are all these "refugees" turning up with absolutely no proof of identity.

I always go back to one of the most famous of these supposed refugee minors, good old Mr anis Amri.
He dumped his documents before he arrived in Lampedusa and then claimed he was a minor.

See how well letting him in worked out for Europe.



If I show you the Telegraph or Breitbard you will of course rubbish it so here is the good old Guardian.

See the bottom section in Bold.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/23/anis-amri-from-young-drifter-to-europes-most-wanted-man

They are not turning up without documentation.
Refugees are being interviewed & screened before they are allowed to come to Ireland.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Have they arrived yet in Roscommon? If not why not?

Syrian refugees are being homed in roscommon, the ones being taken in from Calais are minors. Presumably they will be home in foster or care homes.

rgossip30

bubblypop wrote: »

They are not turning up without documentation.
Refugees are being interviewed & screened before they are allowed to come to Ireland.

How do you screen someone with no documents ?

kupus

Deleted User wrote: »

I had noticed that, too.

My own opinion is that some posters (and I'm being careful not to name any), deliberately misrepresent posts, in the certain knowledge that what they allege will have to be refuted.

It's a useful technique when they have no defense to what was actually posted, and are hoping to steer the discussion down another route.
"Attack is the best form of defense" seems to be the methodology used.

My own opinion is that it's a dishonest, and inferior style of debate - and, indeed, there is little point in debating with people who, when faced with facts, refuse to either counter with facts, or, indeed, acknowledge the truth in any way.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" comes to mind - and that is being charitable, and not accusing anyone of having a hidden agenda.....which is, of course, impossible to moderate!

Its a liberal called the 4D's.

Deny the problem exists
Deflect the problem questions that are asked
Distort the info given
Defame the people asking the questions.

It has proven very valuable in the past for the enlightened ones to shout down, twist and then shut down discussion.
But people are beginning to see thru the BS that passes for enlightened liberalism.

Funny I used to consider myself liberal, back when i was young and hadn't a friggen clue ( I didn't even know you had to bribe officials in Libya, ah I'm kidding on that one I'm not that green, I was just surprised at the cost!!) but I still am liberal....to a degree.
Just dont pi$$ down my leg and tell me its raining.

Yet some posters here would have me and a lot more on these boards painted as a racist nazi homophobe islamophobe everythingophobe knuckle dragging gombeens, that havent a clue just we ask very simple questions,
and bring up very simple points.

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

How do you screen someone with no documents ?

They are interviewed, fingerprinted & information they give is checked.
They are screened as best as is possible. I'm not sure what else can be done?
People found to be lying, or even with a slight question over them are not recommended.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

They are interviewed, fingerprinted & information they give is checked.
They are screened as best as is possible. I'm not sure what else can be done?
People found to be lying, or even with a slight question over them are not recommended.

So, how many have been turned back at the European borders, then?

Also, any chance of a reply to my earlier posts?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

So, how many have been turned back at the European borders, then?

The post related to the refugees to be transferred from Greece and France to a Ireland. Obviously asylum seekers need to be admitted to the initial state they're seeking asylum in, to assess the merits of their claim.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, how many have been turned back at the European borders, then?

Also, any chance of a reply to my earlier posts?

I'm talking about refugees that are being brought to Ireland from camps in the leb, Greece & Calais. I don't know anything about people getting turned back at European borders.
Which posts?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm talking about refugees that are being brought to Ireland from camps in the leb, Greece & Calais. I don't know anything about people getting turned back at European borders.
Which posts?

These.
By the way, how are the lads at Calais provably refugee?
They've been housed in France.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah! So, you can identify people who are intending on committing crime - in some circumstances, at least.

Now, how do you identify the known ISIS fighter if they are not carrying any ID?

You can't! So, do we let them in anyway, and allow them to commit an atrocity? The kicker is, we can't actually keep them out, if they claim asylum.

It would be really nice if this situation was conveniently black and white.
It's not.

It's wrong to refuse whatever help we can give to genuine refugees.
It's wrong to stand idly by and let ISIS members terrorize Europe.

Just to really make it tough - some genuine Syrian refugees are ISIS fighters.

How do we solve that one, do you think?

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me quote what I posted again:



Hmm. No suggestion of blocking all Syrians. Quite the opposite.
Followed by a list of difficulties, and a request for your opinion on how we could solve them.

How, in any way, does that equate to blocking all Syrians from Ireland?
And do you have any suggestions?



No worries, Widdershins. You made a valid point, so I thought I should clear it up for the benefit of any reader not familiar with my posting history.

Please don't take a Boards break on my account. I enjoy your posts, and understood your reason for posting!:D

What do you want me to answer in those posts?
The authorities are doing all they can do to screen these people & keep terrorists out.
I'm not really sure what else you want them to do?

ultra violet 5

there really should be free movement of all people to go wherever they want

The lads in Calais are coming from the camps, most have been there for a few years.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to take these lads from Calais, but the government decided we were.

ultra violet 5

bubblypop wrote: »

The lads in Calais are coming from the camps, most have been there for a few years.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to take these lads from Calais, but the government decided we were.

don't worry it will work out fine

wir schaffen das

Mr.Micro

bubblypop wrote: »

What do you want me to answer in those posts?
The authorities are doing all they can do to screen these people & keep terrorists out.
I'm not really sure what else you want them to do?

Agreed.


Going off the point for a moment.
It always makes me laugh when us Irish are worried about terrorists. The irony. Terrorists have been endorsed and supported here for decades. So the terrorist excuse does not ring true IMO.

jmayo

bubblypop wrote: »

They are not turning up without documentation.
Refugees are being interviewed & screened before they are allowed to come to Ireland.

Are you really trying to pull the p***.
Giving documents to someone in a camp in Greece or Italy or someone from Calais is not the same as them having identification documentation from their country of origin.

And who are going to be carrying out these interviews ?
What is the screening, do they consult the dept of justice in the countries that the claimants are supposedly from originally ?

bubblypop wrote: »

They are interviewed, fingerprinted & information they give is checked.

Checked with whom ?
Are their details forwarded to Syrian authorities or authorities in Somali, Eritrea, Iraq, etc ?

bubblypop wrote: »

They are screened as best as is possible. I'm not sure what else can be done?
People found to be lying, or even with a slight question over them are not recommended.

Best as is possible says a lot.

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm talking about refugees that are being brought to Ireland from camps in the leb, Greece & Calais. I don't know anything about people getting turned back at European borders.
Which posts?

I just love that way you are suddenly lumping camps in Lebanon in with camps in Greece and the jungle dwellers in Calais.

Another example of you playing loose with the facts and truth to suit your argument ?

There is a huge God damn difference between those three.

If the anti side tried that we would be searching google for verifying documentation and links for the next decade. :rolleyes:

gitzy16v

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Agreed.


Going off the point for a moment.
It always makes me laugh when us Irish are worried about terrorists. The irony. Terrorists have been endorsed and supported here for decades. So the terrorist excuse does not ring true IMO.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

rgossip30

gitzy16v wrote: »

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Does that mean we should take in more :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

Was it contained in an announcement somewhere that we'd be taking in people without documents?

Mr.Micro

gitzy16v wrote: »

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

No, a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what cause is claimed, if actions are against a legitimate Government or authority, IMO.

ultra violet 5

does anyone remember simon coveney beinfg elected?

Stheno

ultra violet 5 wrote: »

does anyone remember simon coveney beinfg elected?

Whats that got to do with the price of sausages?

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

No, a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what cause is claimed, if actions are against a legitimate Government or authority, IMO.

How do define a legitimate government or authority? It's not quite so black and white.

ultra violet 5

Stheno wrote: »

Whats that got to do with the price of sausages?

nothing really,

personally i remember him being elected, heard it on th eradio athe time

but i was talking to a gentleman today and he sai mr coveney is untrustworthy

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

Are you really trying to pull the p***.
Giving documents to someone in a camp in Greece or Italy or someone from Calais is not the same as them having identification documentation from their country of origin.

And who are going to be carrying out these interviews ?
What is the screening, do they consult the dept of justice in the countries that the claimants are supposedly from originally ?



Checked with whom ?
Are their details forwarded to Syrian authorities or authorities in Somali, Eritrea, Iraq, etc ?



Best as is possible says a lot.



I just love that way you are suddenly lumping camps in Lebanon in with camps in Greece and the jungle dwellers in Calais.

Another example of you playing loose with the facts and truth to suit your argument ?

There is a huge God damn difference between those three.

If the anti side tried that we would be searching google for verifying documentation and links for the next decade. :rolleyes:

If you're actually interested, there's ample information about the screening, interview process, information forms to fill out, and appeals processes that asylum seekers have to go through up on the web. It's not exactly secret stuff.
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Difficult-to-Believe-The-assessment-of-asylum-claims-in-Ireland.pdf

There's no difference in the legal status of refugees located in Lebanon, Greece, or Calais, save that the refugees in the EU will have been fingerprinted by a EURODAC agency and interviewed by the EU state they're currently in.