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

jmayo

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:

What are you talking about?
This thread is about the minors being taken from Calais. They are being interviewed, fingerprinted & any info is being checked.
I never said I think it's a good idea to take them but we are.

Syrian refugees are being housed in the Lebanon & Greece. They are also being interviewed and info given is being checked.
The department of justice is ultimately responsible for who gets in. Recommendations are given by interviewers. Who include Gardai & in the case of Calais, tusla.

I'm sure the interviewers are well able to investigate and now what they are doing.

What more so you expect the authorities to do?

Mr.Micro

bubblypop wrote: »

What are you talking about?
This thread is about the minors being taken from Calais. They are being interviewed, fingerprinted & any info is being checked.
I never said I think it's a good idea to take them but we are.

Syrian refugees are being housed in the Lebanon & Greece. They are also being interviewed and info given is being checked.
The department of justice is ultimately responsible for who gets in. Recommendations are given by interviewers. Who include Gardai & in the case of Calais, tusla.

I'm sure the interviewers are well able to investigate and now what they are doing.

What more so you expect the authorities to do?

I think the bottom line is, many Irish people do not want them here. We Irish go everywhere and have done for generations. We should be happy to help where we can and do our bit.

bubblypop

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?

Your opinion about a possible solution. An acknowledgement that there are areas of concern. Anything but the blind refusal to accept that there are real risks here, and there is also a real opportunity for genuine debate.

While we're playing the "There's a risk" - "No, there's not" game, we are all wasting our time.

It serves to completely stifle the discussion, to be fair.

ultra violet 5 wrote: »

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

Who's going to pay for all this? Where is the infrastructure?

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.

They have? You do know this is the Republic?

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything but the blind refusal to accept that there are real risks here...

There are real risks involved in getting in a car. Do you use a car? Do you think parents should let their children travel in cars? What sort of monster would allow their child to travel in a car?! Don't they know there are risks?!?!

Yes, there are risks. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk - in fact, falling out of bed is statistically a lot more likely to kill you than a Muslim refugee is.

Widdershins

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are real risks involved in getting in a car. Do you use a car? Do you think parents should let their children travel in cars? What sort of monster would allow their child to travel in a car?! Don't they know there are risks?!?!

Yes, there are risks. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk - in fact, falling out of bed is statistically a lot more likely to kill you than a Muslim refugee is.

Necessary risks that go with modern life.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your opinion about a possible solution. An acknowledgement that there are areas of concern. Anything but the blind refusal to accept that there are real risks here, and there is also a real opportunity for genuine debate.

While we're playing the "There's a risk" - "No, there's not" game, we are all wasting our time.

It serves to completely stifle the discussion, to be fair.



They have? You do know this is the Republic?

No one said there isn't risks, there are risks everywhere!
Everything that can be done to ensure safety is being done.

As regards our own terrorists in this country, they have and continue to be active here & have support here.

oscarBravo

Widdershins wrote: »

Necessary risks that go with modern life.

...because nobody has ever died in a car accident as a result of taking unnecessary risks.

But hey: I get it. It's OK to risk your children's lives to avoid having to walk somewhere. But taking an infinitely smaller risk in order to give an immigrant a better life is utterly inconceivable.

The calculus of privilege, in a nutshell.

jmayo

alastair wrote: »

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.

There might not be difference in UN or international legal terms, but in reality there is a huge difference between the majority young males who were rich enough to get to Greece or Calais and poor devils stuck in a camp in Lebanon.

Reading through that document it appears to apply to people already in the state.
And the bottom line is it is also subjective because there is an element of taking the person at face value.
Also in one example they mention the

applicants solicitor applicant’s solicitor submitted copies of their Iranian birth certificate and national ID card, indicating that the originals are with the [Garda National Emmigration Bureau]

Now if all these refugees have no documents what happens in comparison to the above case ?

bubblypop wrote: »

What are you talking about?
This thread is about the minors being taken from Calais. They are being interviewed, fingerprinted & any info is being checked.
I never said I think it's a good idea to take them but we are.

Being checked against what or who ?
Who are their fingerprints sent to ?

bubblypop wrote: »

Syrian refugees are being housed in the Lebanon & Greece. They are also being interviewed and info given is being checked.
The department of justice is ultimately responsible for who gets in. Recommendations are given by interviewers. Who include Gardai & in the case of Calais, tusla.

I'm sure the interviewers are well able to investigate and now what they are doing.

What more so you expect the authorities to do?

So we are relying on Tusla and AGS ?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think the bottom line is, many Irish people do not want them here. We Irish go everywhere and have done for generations. We should be happy to help where we can and do our bit.

Ah yes lets have the old Whataboutery.

Thing is the Irish emigrated, they went through checks to get into their host countries.

And when they got there they worked damn hard and didn't expect handouts.

And yes before you say it, we do know some Irish in the latter half of the 20th century went on the dole in the UK, but I will have you know none of the many relatives of mine who emigrated down through the years to UK, USA or Australia went on the dole or looked to the taxpayers of their new countries for handouts.
They worked and damn hard to make new lives for themselves and get this they integrated.
Yep they kept their religion, their music, their sports, but they integrated and their children, their childrens' children now call themselves American, British, Australian.
They don't hate the countries that took them or their ancestors in.

Widdershins

oscarBravo wrote: »

...because nobody has ever died in a car accident as a result of taking unnecessary risks.

But hey: I get it. It's OK to risk your children's lives to avoid having to walk somewhere. But taking an infinitely smaller risk in order to give an immigrant a better life is utterly inconceivable.

The calculus of privilege, in a nutshell.

I didn't say anything about the acceptability of either. If you want to maintain an income, a child's education, or your heath by visiting a medical professional,and you live rurallly, the choice of walking often isn't viable. We do take pains to make driving safer. I think we have to do the same with the other risk being discussed here. *Wipes a fleck of privilege from the computer screen*

oscarBravo

Widdershins wrote: »

We do take pains to make driving safer. I think we have to do the same with the other risk being discussed here.

Given that immigrants are, statistically, orders of magnitude less dangerous than cars, I don't think we need to worry as much as some of the hand-wringers here would have us believe.

Mr.Micro

jmayo wrote: »

There might not be difference in UN or international legal terms, but in reality there is a huge difference between the majority young males who were rich enough to get to Greece or Calais and poor devils stuck in a camp in Lebanon.

Reading through that document it appears to apply to people already in the state.
And the bottom line is it is also subjective because there is an element of taking the person at face value.
Also in one example they mention the


Now if all these refugees have no documents what happens in comparison to the above case ?



Being checked against what or who ?
Who are their fingerprints sent to ?



So we are relying on Tusla and AGS ?



Ah yes lets have the old Whataboutery.

Thing is the Irish emigrated, they went through checks to get into their host countries.

And when they got there they worked damn hard and didn't expect handouts.

And yes before you say it, we do know some Irish in the latter half of the 20th century went on the dole in the UK, but I will have you know none of the many relatives of mine who emigrated down through the years to UK, USA or Australia went on the dole or looked to the taxpayers of their new countries for handouts.
They worked and damn hard to make new lives for themselves and get this they integrated.
Yep they kept their religion, their music, their sports, but they integrated and their children, their childrens' children now call themselves American, British, Australian.
They don't hate the countries that took them or their ancestors in.

What about the 50,000 undocumented Irish in the US. Have they gone though checks. No

What is to say any immigrants to Ireland would work hard to make a new life, if given the chance.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are real risks involved in getting in a car. Do you use a car? Do you think parents should let their children travel in cars? What sort of monster would allow their child to travel in a car?! Don't they know there are risks?!?!

Yes, there are risks. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk - in fact, falling out of bed is statistically a lot more likely to kill you than a Muslim refugee is.

Statistically the risk of being run over by a truck must be quiet small in the grand scheme of things.

But I reckon that is small consolation to the 86 people (10 children) killed and the 434 injured in Nice, nor the 12 killed and 56 injured in Berlin.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

Statistically the risk of being run over by a truck must be quiet small in the grand scheme of things.

But I reckon that is small consolation to the 86 people (10 children) killed and the 434 injured in Nice, nor the 12 killed and 56 injured in Berlin.

Luckily they can be consoled by the fact that the perpetrators of those atrocities are in no position to harm anyone else. You still can't apportion blame onto other randomers - or to be fair, you can, as long as it's just to demonstrate the lack of logic to your bias.

jmayo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What about the 50,000 undocumented Irish in the US.

What is to say any immigrants to Ireland would work hard to make a new life, if given the chance.

Even though the vast majority of them are working (no real alternative given their undocumented status like with huge chunk of Central and South Americans), and have made lives for themselves, technically they have no right to be there.

And as Trump has mooted if they break the law they should be shipped home immediately after any sentence has been served.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

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.

A report on EURODAC search adhered .

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573304/EPRS_BRI(2016)573304_EN.pdf

The use of DNA for age in not accurate to 3.75 years for dental and 4.8 years .

https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2015/09/can-dna-testing-determine-age

Germany's Woes .I vish ve had a trump .

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-refugees-germany/?source=TRUMP

Mr.Micro

jmayo wrote: »

Even though the vast majority of them are working (no real alternative given their undocumented status like with huge chunk of Central and South Americans), and have made lives for themselves, technically they have no right to be there.

And as Trump has mooted if they break the law they should be shipped home immediately after any sentence has been served.

If they are all shipped home, will they welcome or be treated like refugees. We just export.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

So we are relying on Tusla and AGS ?
.

Who would you suggest to interview & investigate?

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

Statistically the risk of being run over by a truck must be quiet small in the grand scheme of things.

But I reckon that is small consolation to the 86 people (10 children) killed and the 434 injured in Nice, nor the 12 killed and 56 injured in Berlin.

I'm sure the statistical unlikelihood of being hit by lightning is no comfort whatsoever to all the people who are hit by lightning every year either.

Bad people did terrible things. Blanket discrimination against entire groups of people - the vast majority of whom I'm sure you'll admit would never dream of taking part in terrorist activities - won't make bad things not happen.

What kind of human beings are we, that we would cheerfully have genuine refugees pay the price of reducing the risk to us from infinitesimal to marginally more infinitesimal? If pushing a Syrian (or a Somali, or a Welshman, or anyone for that matter) off a bridge would somehow reduce your chances of being hit by lightning, would you consider that a price worth paying?

Widdershins

oscarBravo wrote: »

Given that immigrants are, statistically, orders of magnitude less dangerous than cars, I don't think we need to worry as much as some of the hand-wringers here would have us believe.

I'm sure you're right. I'm with the ones who advocate better vetting though. It needn't hurt anyone and could also protect genuine refugees.

oscarBravo

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm with the ones who advocate better vetting though.

Better than what, exactly?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are real risks involved in getting in a car. Do you use a car? Do you think parents should let their children travel in cars? What sort of monster would allow their child to travel in a car?! Don't they know there are risks?!?!

Yes, there are risks. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk - in fact, falling out of bed is statistically a lot more likely to kill you than a Muslim refugee is.

Indeed. I'm delighted that people are finally beginning to acknowledge that there are risks.

bubblypop wrote: »

No one said there isn't risks, there are risks everywhere!
Everything that can be done to ensure safety is being done.

As regards our own terrorists in this country, they have and continue to be active here & have support here.

Then why is Frontex reporting that 60% of those who entered Europe economic migrants.

If by "our own terrorists" you mean the IRA, when did they bomb anywhere in the Republic? Or threaten to do so? I thought they were disbanded, anyway?
Certainly, there is an active peace process in the North of this Island, I'm pleased to say.

alastair wrote: »

Luckily they can be consoled by the fact that the perpetrators of those atrocities are in no position to harm anyone else. You still can't apportion blame onto other randomers - or to be fair, you can, as long as it's just to demonstrate the lack of logic to your bias.

Who apportioned blame onto other randomers?
Personally, I've said repeatedly that genuine refugees should be helped.
Paying out (some unquantified amount, less than) €275,000 yearly each on migrants that have no right whatsoever to be here is another issue entirely.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure the statistical unlikelihood of being hit by lightning is no comfort whatsoever to all the people who are hit by lightning every year either.

Bad people did terrible things. Blanket discrimination against entire groups of people - the vast majority of whom I'm sure you'll admit would never dream of taking part in terrorist activities - won't make bad things not happen.

What kind of human beings are we, that we would cheerfully have genuine refugees pay the price of reducing the risk to us from infinitesimal to marginally more infinitesimal? If pushing a Syrian (or a Somali, or a Welshman, or anyone for that matter) off a bridge would somehow reduce your chances of being hit by lightning, would you consider that a price worth paying?

I'm fully aware the vast majority of refugees would never dream of taking part in terrorist activities.

On the other hand:
Are you aware that there is a finite pool of resources, and that the 60% of migrants who, according to Frontex, have no claim to asylum whatsoever - are taking the majority of those resources?

Therefore, it is not those who are calling for greater controls on this site that are causing harm to genuine refugees - it is those who are scamming the system.

I have to go out. I'll get back to this later.

Edit: Sorry. I had to go out - something unexpected came up.

To continue: If I were an ISIS militant, who want to commit an atrocity in Europe, I'd probably have two choices.
I could chance my arm with forged documents (that probably cost a fortune!) - or, I could walk in, without documents, and claim asylum.

Now, that's a no-brainer. Why would anyone spend lots of money on forged documents, when the forgery might be detected, if they could walk in, uncontested, for free. No risk of being turned back, and housing, and an income guaranteed.

So, what is the percentage of those who are undocumented?
Strangely enough, in all the articles I've read, I've never come across an actual percentage figure for this. Vague terms like "many" are there in abundance. Therefore, unlike driving a car, or falling out of bed - we actually have no means of assessing the risk level.

We know that the experience in Europe has been negative, given that both Angela Merkel, and Wolfgang Schäuble have described it as a mistake.

The question everyone wants answered is: How do we improve on the German, French, and Swedish experience? Both from a security viewpoint, and from the viewpoint of directing scarce resources toward genuine refugees, rather than crooks. In addition we need to determine how best to utilise the resources we have, in a cost effective manner.

dissed doc

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.

Ha! Didn't take her long. She is the liberal equivalent of Katie Hopkins. You just can't take it seriously - she must be cracking up at all the crazy antics she can get up to, now that a bunch of suckers got her into government! Good times! Woo!

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Then why is Frontex reporting that 60% of those who entered Europe economic migrants.

They're not.

Deleted User wrote: »

Who apportioned blame onto other randomers?

You did. And continue to in this very post - with all the 'risk' narrative..

Deleted User wrote: »

We know that the experience in Europe has been negative, given that both Angela Merkel, and Wolfgang Schäuble have described it as a mistake.

No they have not. Schäuble said that mistakes were made, not that the policy was a mistake.
http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-defends-policies-stays-silent-on-populists-in-bundestag-speech/a-36489156
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/merkel-rejects-calls-to-change-germanys-refugee-policy-after-attacks

alastair

alastair wrote: »

They're not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/six-out-of-10-migrants-to-europe-come-for-economic-reasons-and-are-not-refugees-eu-vice-president-a6836306.html

More than half of all migrants to Europe are motivated by “economic reasons” and are not fleeing war or persecution, the vice-president of the European Commission has said.
Dutch politician Frans Timmermans said the majority of migrants to Europe are from North African countries such as Morocco or Tunisia, where there is no conflict.
“More than half of the people now coming to Europe come from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status... more than half, 60 per cent,” he told Dutch broadcaster NOS.


His said his statement came after viewing new figures from EU border agency Frontex which have not yet been officially published

alastair wrote: »

You did. And continue to in this very post - with all the 'risk' narrative..

Prove it! With a quote - thanks.

alastair wrote: »

No they have not. Schäuble said that mistakes were made, not that the policy was a mistake.

Semantics.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Prove it! With a quote - thanks.

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'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.

Deleted User wrote: »

Semantics.

Not at all. They both defend the policy - the opposite of your false claim.

And - like I said - Frontex are not reporting any 60% figure. A year on and that supposed report is still unpublished:
https://euobserver.com/migration/132048

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Not at all. They both defend the policy - the opposite of your false claim.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/712125/Angela-Merkel-admits-regrets-open-door-migrant-policy

Following a devastating defeat in Berlin state elections today, Mrs Merkel said she accepted her share of responsibility for voters punishing her ruling Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) party for her refugee-friendly migrant policy.
Speaking at a news conference in Berlin, she said: "If I could, I would turn back the time by many, many years."
The German premier admitted she could have been better prepared for the influx of migrants last year.
She added if she knew how people wanted her to change her migrant policy she would consider it.

https://www.rt.com/news/375507-german-government-refugees-mistakes/

Berlin made mistakes with its “open-door” refugee policy, which “went off course” and saw hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers entering the country over the past two years, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble admits.
The German government is currently trying “to improve what went off course in 2015,” Schaeuble told Die Welt’s Sunday edition in an interview. “We politicians are human beings and we also make mistakes, but one can at least learn from them,” he maintained.

alastair wrote: »

And - like I said - Frontex are not reporting any 60% figure. A year on and that supposed report is still unpublished:
https://euobserver.com/migration/132048

Let's wait for Frontex to publish the report for 2016, shall we? Unless you want to call Frans Timmermans a liar? If so, work away!

Now, to your unfounded accusation:

Where does questioning how you assess the risk of ISIS members entering Europe apportion blame to randomers:

Quote:
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'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.
Note the bolded sections please.
I'm afraid you'll have to do better.
There is nothing in that statement that apportions blame to randomers - unless you want to describe ISIS fighters as "randomers?"

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/712125/Angela-Merkel-admits-regrets-open-door-migrant-policy



https://www.rt.com/news/375507-german-government-refugees-mistakes/





Let's wait for Frontex to publish the report for 2016, shall we? Unless you want to call Frans Timmermans a liar? If so, work away!

Now, to your unfounded accusation:

Where does questioning how you assess the risk of ISIS members entering Europe apportion blame to randomers:

Quote:
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'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.
Note the bolded sections please.
I'm afraid you'll have to do better.
There is nothing in that statement that apportions blame to randomers - unless you want to describe ISIS fighters as "randomers?"

It's you who's describing random refugees as posing a risk as 'potential' ISIS fighters. Your emboldening really doesn't do anything to remove that claim. I'm afraid you'll have to come up with something better than dissembling.

The supposed document Timmermans was referring to related to 2015 figures. Frontex did not publish anything to support this claim, and their actual reports for 2015 tell a different story. He got it wrong - as you did:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/01/new-figures-dispute-timmermans-economic-migrants-claim/

Merkel in her new year speech, confirming the refugee policy was no 'mistake':

Merkel however has defended her open door refugee policy, which was passed in September 2015.

She said in her message, “With the images of the bombed in Aleppo in Syria, one may say once again how important and right it was that our country in the past year allowed those who actually need our help to be here with us, to take a step and to integrate.”

Adding, “All this — it is reflected in our democracy, in our state, in our values.”

The German Chancellor asked people to stay strong and promised them that the government would take swift and necessary political or legal changes to close down any security gaps.

http://www.gopusa.com/merkel-still-defends-open-border-policy/

She also portrayed her open stance toward waves of political refugees, especially from Syria, in the past two years as a point of pride for Germany.
"Despite all the critical discussions, last year there was a fantastic level of cooperation and solidarity," Merkel said. "Our country can truly be proud. I think one of the most urgent political tasks is the fight against illegal immigration and human trafficking."

http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-defends-policies-stays-silent-on-populists-in-bundestag-speech/a-36489156

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure the statistical unlikelihood of being hit by lightning is no comfort whatsoever to all the people who are hit by lightning every year either.

Bad people did terrible things. Blanket discrimination against entire groups of people - the vast majority of whom I'm sure you'll admit would never dream of taking part in terrorist activities - won't make bad things not happen.

There is such a thing as profiling and whilst it may not be liked by you or others, it does actually work.
During the 70s and 80s who were statistically most likely to commit terrorist atrocities in Britain?
It was Irish people.
Definitely not all Irish people, but there was still a risk and thus the British authorities would not let Irish people near certain sensitive targets and they carried out high degree of background checks.

Now what group pose the biggest security threat to Britain and the western world today ?

And yet you and others would allow people from that group into your country with shag all information as to their background, just based on if a members of Tusla or the AGS together with our Dept of Justice got a warm fuzzy feeling from them and found them believable.

Another example of how you prevent terrorist threats is the way El Al carry out background checks on people using it's flights.
In fact they are seen to set the gold standard for airline security and they have repeatedly foiled terrorist attacks and attempted hijackings.
They operate with the philosophy that it is under attack every day.

And that is what the security services in every single European country should operate under as well.
If the French did then a priest would probably be alive in France today or at lest if dead he wouldn't have been decapitated.
If the Belgians did then there would probably not have been a mass slaughter in Brussels airport or possibly in Paris.
If the Germans did then a certain 12 people would still be alive today in Berlin.

You will claim statistically most refugees or should that be migrants are not terrorists.
Whilst that may be true out of a million into Europe last year they reckon 5,000 are ISIS and God knows how many more would tacitly support the likes of ISIS.

That is more than a little scary and not quiet as benign as you would like to make out.

Then add in the criminal element and the antisocial behaviour brought by the migrants that have entered Europe and lo and behold there aren't any of the much vaunted benefits claimed by the pro side anywhere to be seen.
I don't hear much about doctors and engineers these days. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo wrote: »

What kind of human beings are we, that we would cheerfully have genuine refugees pay the price of reducing the risk to us from infinitesimal to marginally more infinitesimal? If pushing a Syrian (or a Somali, or a Welshman, or anyone for that matter) off a bridge would somehow reduce your chances of being hit by lightning, would you consider that a price worth paying?

Change that to Westport man and I might be tempted

BTW your comparison is null and void, the Syrian, Somalian or Welshman aren't the cause of the lightning, but get this two of those three are probably statistically way more likely to harm me because of their religious beliefs.
And they are statistically way more likely not to integrate into our secular western society.

bubblypop wrote: »

Who would you suggest to interview & investigate?

At this stage probably the Americans since even way before Trumps arrival they have had very strict vetting procedures in place.

We know the French, Belgians and Germans ability to vet and monitor people is cr** and has resulted in countless dead.

dissed doc wrote: »

Ha! Didn't take her long. She is the liberal equivalent of Katie Hopkins. You just can't take it seriously - she must be cracking up at all the crazy antics she can get up to, now that a bunch of suckers got her into government! Good times! Woo!

Basically zappone and that other muppet murphy that was on this morning would screw over Irish and other nationalities flying out of Ireland just to make their point.
Who suffers if US immigration facilities are removed from our airports ?
Fooking muppets. :mad:

'Quote: bubblypop
Who would you suggest to interview & investigate?


At this stage probably the Americans since even way before Trumps arrival they have had very strict vetting procedures in place.'


Enough said, you would rather let a country miles away from us to get the people we let into our country?
Ridiculous.

How many terrorist attacks have been committed in Ireland? ( not by the ira I mean)
Seems to me vetting is going better then the Americans

And, FYI you have no idea how the vetting is done in this country.

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

There is such a thing as profiling and whilst it may not be liked by you or others, it does actually work.

That's the same justification used for "stop and frisk", and it doesn't work. By far and away the most effective consequence of racial profiling is the creation of simmering resentment.

Now what group pose the biggest security threat to Britain and the western world today ?

Fast food restaurants.

It's a glib answer, sure: but the average westerner is several orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by terrorism of any stripe, let alone by a Muslim immigrant. Hell, you're more likely to be killed by your lawnmower, or by your TV falling on you, than by Islamist terrorism.

And yet you and others would allow people from that group into your country with shag all information as to their background, just based on if a members of Tusla or the AGS together with our Dept of Justice got a warm fuzzy feeling from them and found them believable.

If you can find a reference to me or anyone else talking about warm fuzzy feelings, please cite it.

They operate with the philosophy that it is under attack every day.

And that is what the security services in every single European country should operate under as well.

OK, let's apply that philosophy more broadly: we had a great deal of hysteria earlier in the thread about how those nasty foreigners were going to rape us all. But the vast, vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by members of the victim's own family, or a close acquaintance.

Is anyone advocating that the police in every European country should operate on the assumption that everyone is a rapist? That nobody should be left alone with another person until an exhaustive background check has proven that they're not going to rape that person?

Of course not: that would be an unforgivable intrusion on people's civil liberties. But it's OK to operate on the assumption that people from certain countries or adherents to certain religions are potential terrorists, because they're somehow less deserving of civil liberties than the rest of us.

If the French did then a priest would probably be alive in France today or at lest if dead he wouldn't have been decapitated.
If the Belgians did then there would probably not have been a mass slaughter in Brussels airport or possibly in Paris.
If the Germans did then a certain 12 people would still be alive today in Berlin.

What group should we deprive of civil liberties as a result of Dylann Roof's actions? I don't recall you advocating for strong background checks of Norwegians as a result of Breivik's rampage.

You will claim statistically most refugees or should that be migrants are not terrorists.

Actually, I'll point out that the percentage of refugees that are terrorists is zero, to a useful approximation.

Whilst that may be true out of a million into Europe last year they reckon 5,000 are ISIS and God knows how many more would tacitly support the likes of ISIS.

Oh, they reckon, do they? Well, I don't know how to counter that sort of hard-and-fast evidence.

BTW your comparison is null and void, the Syrian, Somalian or Welshman aren't the cause of the lightning, but get this two of those three are probably statistically way more likely to harm me because of their religious beliefs.

...and still statistically less likely than being hit by lightning. It's funny how you're happy to invoke statistical likelihood when you think it supports your argument.

We know the French, Belgians and Germans ability to vet and monitor people is cr** and has resulted in countless dead.

Countless? Seriously?

jmayo

bubblypop wrote: »

'Quote: bubblypop
Who would you suggest to interview & investigate?


At this stage probably the Americans since even way before Trumps arrival they have had very strict vetting procedures in place.'


Enough said, you would rather let a country miles away from us to get the people we let into our country?
Ridiculous.

How many terrorist attacks have been committed in Ireland? ( not by the ira I mean)
Seems to me vetting is going better then the Americans

And, FYI you have no idea how the vetting is done in this country.

So just because nothing has happened here yet that means we are better at security.
And because nothing has happened in an environment where we have had shag all undocumented muslim migrnats/refugees then we will forever be immune from islamist terrorist attacks. :rolleyes:

If this is the mindset of some then we are truly fooked.

I wonder is that how the Spanish thought pre 2004.
Perhaps that's how the Australians thought before someone with a makeshift ISIS flag wandered into a cafe one day.

We are not so special that we are somehow immune from the real world.
We are seen as being one of the hosts of some of the USA biggest and most prominent companies.

The Twin Towers were attacked for their symbolism.

Why don't you fill us all in and how the vetting will be done.
Can you deny it is still down to subjective feeling of interviewers if there is no document trail available to disprove or prove an applicants bona fides ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the same justification used for "stop and frisk", and it doesn't work. By far and away the most effective consequence of racial profiling is the creation of simmering resentment. Fast food restaurants.

It's a glib answer, sure: but the average westerner is several orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by terrorism of any stripe, let alone by a Muslim immigrant. Hell, you're more likely to be killed by your lawnmower, or by your TV falling on you, than by Islamist terrorism. If you can find a reference to me or anyone else talking about warm fuzzy feelings, please cite it. OK, let's apply that philosophy more broadly: we had a great deal of hysteria earlier in the thread about how those nasty foreigners were going to rape us all. But the vast, vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by members of the victim's own family, or a close acquaintance.

Is anyone advocating that the police in every European country should operate on the assumption that everyone is a rapist? That nobody should be left alone with another person until an exhaustive background check has proven that they're not going to rape that person?

Of course not: that would be an unforgivable intrusion on people's civil liberties. But it's OK to operate on the assumption that people from certain countries or adherents to certain religions are potential terrorists, because they're somehow less deserving of civil liberties than the rest of us. What group should we deprive of civil liberties as a result of Dylann Roof's actions? I don't recall you advocating for strong background checks of Norwegians as a result of Breivik's rampage. Actually, I'll point out that the percentage of refugees that are terrorists is zero, to a useful approximation. Oh, they reckon, do they? Well, I don't know how to counter that sort of hard-and-fast evidence. ...and still statistically less likely than being hit by lightning. It's funny how you're happy to invoke statistical likelihood when you think it supports your argument. Countless? Seriously?

I see what you are trying to do.

BTW why not look up comments by German security officals and NATO generals to see their opinions on terrorists coming into Europe as refugees.
But of course you probably know better what with all the information you have access to surfing the web in Westport.

To me countless dead is when we are talking about hundreds of people although with your love of statistics and percentages you will probably only take it seriously when thousands are slaughtered.
Lets hope their aim of attacking nuclear facilities is never successful or you will then be worried. :rolleyes:

To you what is a few hundred people killed in the grand scheme of things.

I wonder if I said who gives a sh** about 6 dead muslims in Qeubec, after all that is so statistically small, more people were killed by lightning in the last few days, hell more people were probably killed falling down the stairs in one day in the USA.
I wonder how many people including yourself would claim I was a callous bast*** and be running to your ex colleagues the mods to have me banned?

BTW 6 dead innocent muslims at prayer is too much and hundreds of dead innocent people in Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin is too much.

Ash.J.Williams

Old Bill wrote: »

When our own people fled Northern Ireland during the troubles they didnt seek "asylum" in Nigeria or Pakistan.

Yet we have do gooders telling us that its our "obligation" to take in "Refugees" from the 3rd world.

You couldn't make it up.

you're not comparing NI to the "troubles" of the Middle east are you? None of our cities were wiped off the map.

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

I wonder if I said who gives a sh** about 6 dead muslims in Qeubec, after all that is so statistically small, more people were killed by lightning in the last few days, hell more people were probably killed falling down the stairs in one day in the USA.

But nobody - nobody - has said "who gives a sh** about" the victims of terrorism in Europe.

Those six Muslims in Québec were apparently murdered by a Canadian. Nobody is demanding that we ban Canadian immigrants; nobody is calling for extreme vetting of Canadians; nobody is shrieking hysterically about how we're all going to be raped in our beds by those nasty Canadians.

Some Muslims are terrorists, but almost all Muslims are not terrorists. Some Canadians (and Norwegians, and pretty much any other nationality you can name) are mass murderers, but almost all people from those countries are not mass murderers.

All I'm asking for is a sense of perspective. If you're going to demand that we keep potentially genuine refugees in limbo because of a threat that's statistically negligible, you really ought to have a decent reason for it.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

But nobody - nobody - has said "who gives a sh** about" the victims of terrorism in Europe.

Those six Muslims in Québec were apparently murdered by a Canadian. Nobody is demanding that we ban Canadian immigrants; nobody is calling for extreme vetting of Canadians; nobody is shrieking hysterically about how we're all going to be raped in our beds by those nasty Canadians.

Yes but if a Canadian turns up in Ireland they are probably showing their passport and if they are dangerous there is a good chance they are flagged somewhere.
It is slightly different, if as you want, some one turns up claiming to be a minor from Syria with absolutely no documentation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Some Muslims are terrorists, but almost all Muslims are not terrorists. Some Canadians (and Norwegians, and pretty much any other nationality you can name) are mass murderers, but almost all people from those countries are not mass murderers.

All I'm asking for is a sense of perspective. If you're going to demand that we keep potentially genuine refugees in limbo because of a threat that's statistically negligible, you really ought to have a decent reason for it.

BTW no matter how you want to spin this there have been far fewer people killed by Canadian terrorists than say Tunisian, Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian, Iraqi, Somali, Aghani terrorists, but you keep trying to equate the two.
BTW I must tell my Canadian friends how dangerous you rate them.

Even if we dismiss the chance as small of a muslim migrant with no proof of identity as being a terrorist, it has been shown in surveys that there is a larger chance that they would be supporters of fundamentalist terrorists.
Molenbeek was a stark reminder of how that is a huge problem within the immigrant muslim communities that already exist in Europe.

And then even if we discount all of that all we have to do is look at the failure of muslim integration in Belgium, France, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Sweden.

They have ticking timebombs, they have muslim citizens going to join ISIS and seeking to kill their fellow citizens.
Hell some of them just stay at home and decide to hack the head off the nearest off duty soldier.

And yes we know Ireland doesn't have a problem with muslim immigrants and shure isn't the cafe in Clonskeagh great and doesn't a muslim play football for Mayo.

That might seem grand, but there already signs of the usual demands for special treatment which turns out to be thin end of the wedge.
We have the likes of Dr Ali Selim, a pominent muslim spokesperson and right hand man to Mr Muslim Brotherhood Hussein Halawa, who has refused to condemn islamist terrorism and has already been seeking segregation in Irish schools that would make the old catholic schooling system look tame.

In every country where the muslim population has grown the demands for special treatment outside the normal secular rules increases and it ultimately leads to antisocial behaviour and violence.

Ah but I suppose like the property bubble we are different.
Except this time it won't end in a soft/hard landing, but possibly a loud bang or the odd beheading.

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

Yes but if a Canadian turns up in Ireland they are probably showing their passport and if they are dangerous there is a good chance they are flagged somewhere.

So Alexandre Bissonnette was on a no-fly list? Anders Breivik would have been detained at Dublin airport? Dylann Roof would have set off alarm bells?

BTW no matter how you want to spin this there have been far fewer people killed by Canadian terrorists than say Tunisian, Egyptian, Saudi, Syrian, Iraqi, Somali, Aghani terrorists, but you keep trying to equate the two.

What about Irish terrorists? Basque terrorists? German terrorists? Norwegian terrorists?

Or are you falling into the idiotic trap of believing that all terrorists are Muslims?

BTW I must tell my Canadian friends how dangerous you rate them.

My point - which I'm pretty sure you understand, because I know you're not stupid - isn't that Canadians are dangerous; it's that Muslims aren't. Sure, some Muslims are - but so are some Canadians.

I get that you've bought into the hysterical belief that the average Muslim is a seething pot of rage just waiting to explode into a rampage of homicidal terror at the slightest provocation, but the fact that you allow yourself to believe something so self-evidently ridiculous doesn't make it true.

Even if we dismiss the chance as small of a muslim migrant with no proof of identity as being a terrorist, it has been shown in surveys that there is a larger chance that they would be supporters of fundamentalist terrorists.
Molenbeek was a stark reminder of how that is a huge problem within the immigrant muslim communities that already exist in Europe.

I wonder what we could do to make Muslims less likely to sympathise with terrorists?

I know: let's treat them all as potential killing machines with no humanising features whatsoever. Let's tar them all with the brush of terrorism, and refuse to give them any benefit of the doubt.

If that won't win them over, I don't know what will.



For the avoidance of doubt: the above three paragraphs were sarcastic.

And then even if we discount all of that all we have to do is look at the failure of muslim integration in Belgium, France, Netherlands, Germany, UK, Sweden.

They have ticking timebombs, they have muslim citizens going to join ISIS and seeking to kill their fellow citizens.
Hell some of them just stay at home and decide to hack the head off the nearest off duty soldier.

And yes we know Ireland doesn't have a problem with muslim immigrants and shure isn't the cafe in Clonskeagh great and doesn't a muslim play football for Mayo.

That might seem grand, but there already signs of the usual demands for special treatment which turns out to be thin end of the wedge.
We have the likes of Dr Ali Selim, a pominent muslim spokesperson and right hand man to Mr Muslim Brotherhood Hussein Halawa, who has refused to condemn islamist terrorism and has already been seeking segregation in Irish schools that would make the old catholic schooling system look tame.

In every country where the muslim population has grown the demands for special treatment outside the normal secular rules increases and it ultimately leads to antisocial behaviour and violence.

Quite the caricaturist, aren't you? You might enjoy some other works from the genre:

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

So Alexandre Bissonnette was on a no-fly list? Anders Breivik would have been detained at Dublin airport? Dylann Roof would have set off alarm bells?

BTW were these guys already appearing on the radar of police or security services for their far right views.
If so then they could have been put on no fly lists.
BTW were they trying to enter other countries with no identification documentation or even under false documents ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

What about Irish terrorists? Basque terrorists? German terrorists? Norwegian terrorists?

You really are big into the whataboutery.

There has been one Norwegian terrorist to the best of my knowledge, granted he killed 77 people in a mass slaughter, but I haven't come across others.

Are you trying to say all terrorists are the same ?
Are you trying to claim that for instance PIRA, UVF, ETA, ANC, etc are the same as al qeada, ISIS, boko haram, Caucasus Emirate's Riyad-us Saliheen ?

This is no way excusing the atrocities (Enniskillen, Warrington, Omagh, Loughinisland, Milltown cemetry, McGurk's Bar bombing, etc) carried out by likes of PIRA, RIRA, CIRA, INLA, UVF, ETA, ANC, etc, but those organisations had discernible goals and usually, not always, tried to avoid wholesale slaughters.
Yes some within the organisations were probably of that opinion, but it wasn't the goal of the organisations.

For example if PIRA were of the same mindset as al qeada they wouldn't have bothered calling in warnings of The Manchester Bombing in 1996, the London Docklands bombing in 1996, Bishopsgate bombing in London in 1993.
These bombs caused billions in damage and yes 3 people were killed.

If the PIRA hadn't called in warnings up to 90 minutes before detonation the number of dead wouldn't be so low and the numbers wounded would not be a couple of hundred, but probably on an even greater scale than of some of worst islamic fundamentalist attacks in Europe.

Also one set of Irish terrorists wanted British withdrawal and a united Ireland whilst another set wanted to stay part of UK.
Neither set wanted to wipe out the entire population of the other and neither set wanted to convert the other to a particular religion.
Most of them have agreed to a cessation of violence and to try and achieve their aims through more peaceful means.

Ever see that happening with ISIS or al qeada ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or are you falling into the idiotic trap of believing that all terrorists are Muslims? My point - which I'm pretty sure you understand, because I know you're not stupid - isn't that Canadians are dangerous; it's that Muslims aren't. Sure, some Muslims are - but so are some Canadians.

I get that you've bought into the hysterical belief that the average Muslim is a seething pot of rage just waiting to explode into a rampage of homicidal terror at the slightest provocation, but the fact that you allow yourself to believe something so self-evidently ridiculous doesn't make it true. I wonder what we could do to make Muslims less likely to sympathise with terrorists?

I know: let's treat them all as potential killing machines with no humanising features whatsoever. Let's tar them all with the brush of terrorism, and refuse to give them any benefit of the doubt.

If that won't win them over, I don't know what will.

Why is it always something we have to do ?
Why is it always our fault ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Quite the caricaturist, aren't you? You might enjoy some other works from the genre:

I find those cartoons distasteful and ignorant.
I do not like the people or given their content and age I would not have liked the people that created them.

The thing is I would not want to kill them and I would not condone the murder of the ones that created them.

See the difference there. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

jmayo wrote: »

Are you trying to say all terrorists are the same ?

What I'm trying to say is that it's morally wrong, as well as stupid and counterproductive, to discriminate against identifiable groups of people because other members of those groups have done bad things.

If you could make a case that a member of such a group had decently high probability of also doing bad things, then we'd have the basis of an intelligent discussion. But nobody has made such a case. The chances of being killed by a Muslim immigrant in the US were recently calculated at one in over three billion. I wouldn't think twice about doing anything that carried those sort of risks, and neither would anyone else, which means that all the talk of risk is a fig-leaf for irrational dislike.

I find those cartoons distasteful and ignorant.

Me too. The difference between us is that I can't see any particular difference between those cartoons and the caricature of the refugee-as-sleeper-terrorist that's all too popular these days.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

But nobody - nobody - has said "who gives a sh** about" the victims of terrorism in Europe.

Those six Muslims in Québec were apparently murdered by a Canadian. Nobody is demanding that we ban Canadian immigrants; nobody is calling for extreme vetting of Canadians; nobody is shrieking hysterically about how we're all going to be raped in our beds by those nasty Canadians.

Some Muslims are terrorists, but almost all Muslims are not terrorists. Some Canadians (and Norwegians, and pretty much any other nationality you can name) are mass murderers, but almost all people from those countries are not mass murderers.

All I'm asking for is a sense of perspective. If you're going to demand that we keep potentially genuine refugees in limbo because of a threat that's statistically negligible, you really ought to have a decent reason for it.

Realistically, all any of us are asking for is a sense of perspective.

Personally, if someone arrives with identification, who is entitled to refugee status, then fair enough.

There is a debate to be had about whether that means they should have free high speed broadband, and an onsite swimming pool etc. There is a debate about affordability, the numbers we can successfully integrate, preference being given on social housing lists, etc., - and I'm fairly sure opinions on these issues would be many and varied - but very few of us would say we shouldn't take any refugees.

"Refugees" without identification are a whole other problem - purely because we have no means of assessing risk factors. I say that in the knowledge that most of these people are no security threat.

But some of them are - and there are valid questions to be asked about how we can identify those who are a threat.

Dismissing the fact that a threat - however small, or large - exists, is a recipe for disaster.

It hardens attitudes to those who have genuine reasons to be here, it enables illegal immigration, to the detriment of genuine refugees, and it will almost undoubtedly allow some ISIS militants access to Europe, which even the most idealistic "open borders" advocates should struggle to avoid.

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the same justification used for "stop and frisk", and it doesn't work. By far and away the most effective consequence of racial profiling is the creation of simmering resentment. Fast food restaurants.

It's a glib answer, sure: but the average westerner is several orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by terrorism of any stripe, let alone by a Muslim immigrant. Hell, you're more likely to be killed by your lawnmower, or by your TV falling on you, than by Islamist terrorism. If you can find a reference to me or anyone else talking about warm fuzzy feelings, please cite it. OK, let's apply that philosophy more broadly: we had a great deal of hysteria earlier in the thread about how those nasty foreigners were going to rape us all. But the vast, vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by members of the victim's own family, or a close acquaintance.

Is anyone advocating that the police in every European country should operate on the assumption that everyone is a rapist? That nobody should be left alone with another person until an exhaustive background check has proven that they're not going to rape that person?

Of course not: that would be an unforgivable intrusion on people's civil liberties. But it's OK to operate on the assumption that people from certain countries or adherents to certain religions are potential terrorists, because they're somehow less deserving of civil liberties than the rest of us. What group should we deprive of civil liberties as a result of Dylann Roof's actions? I don't recall you advocating for strong background checks of Norwegians as a result of Breivik's rampage. Actually, I'll point out that the percentage of refugees that are terrorists is zero, to a useful approximation. Oh, they reckon, do they? Well, I don't know how to counter that sort of hard-and-fast evidence. ...and still statistically less likely than being hit by lightning. It's funny how you're happy to invoke statistical likelihood when you think it supports your argument. Countless? Seriously?

You can argue all you want there is no logic for mass asylum seeking and the handout of welfare and houses .

Brian?

rgossip30 wrote: »

You can argue all you want there is no logic for mass asylum seeking and the handout of welfare and houses .

It's funny that you should say that in a thread about taking in a small amount of children. Is there any logical reason not to have limited acceptance of refugees admitted to Ireland? That's the actual discussion here, not some sort of open border welfare program.

rgossip30

Brian? wrote: »

It's funny that you should say that in a thread about taking in a small amount of children. Is there any logical reason not to have limited acceptance of refugees admitted to Ireland? That's the actual discussion here, not some sort of open border welfare program.

Limited but this maybe the start of a more extensive program .

Widdershins

I have never heard that there's any limit on it, just that they commit to a set number of refugees at any one time. They have never said they'll limit their intake to that number, have they?

Brian?

rgossip30 wrote: »

Limited but this maybe the start of a more extensive program .

And if it is, where's the limit for you?

If people are afraid this is the thin end of a wedge that will bust open our borders to hordes of refugees, I can't see it happening. We can't support an large influx.

Geuze

Brian? wrote: »

It's funny that you should say that in a thread about taking in a small amount of children. Is there any logical reason not to have limited acceptance of refugees admitted to Ireland? That's the actual discussion here, not some sort of open border welfare program.

I would argue for the acceptance of genuine refugees from Syria.

The figure of 4,000 has been mentioned over the last year, and I would accept that.

The 80 people going to Ballagh, Co. Roscommon are "mostly Syrian", which is somewhat worrying, and possible misleading by the Govt.

However, I reject Zappone's plan to bring in 200 illegal immigrants from Calais.

alastair

Geuze wrote: »

However, I reject Zappone's plan to bring in 200 illegal immigrants from Calais.

They won't be illegal as soon as they're accepted. Just like all refugees are illegal until granted refugee status. Your rejection is noted. They're still coming.

Brian?

Geuze wrote: »

I would argue for the acceptance of genuine refugees from Syria.

The figure of 4,000 has been mentioned over the last year, and I would accept that.

The 80 people going to Ballagh, Co. Roscommon are "mostly Syrian", which is somewhat worrying, and possible misleading by the Govt.

However, I reject Zappone's plan to bring in 200 illegal immigrants from Calais.

So you feel that some refugees are more acceptable than others?

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

"Refugees" without identification are a whole other problem - purely because we have no means of assessing risk factors.

I haven't seen any indication that the children we plan to take in have no identification. That aside, is it your position that someone who has lost their passport should be permanently abandoned?

enricoh

We spend e700 million annually on foreign aid at the same we are running a budget deficit. How much is enough ?

250k !! per child, the joke is on us. There was a woman on the six o clock news helping genuine Syrian refugees in atrocious winter conditions in turkey. I'd bet she could help thousands of kids out there with 250k. Instead of one of the 'mainly Syrian, mainly 17 year old ' chancers that have been hanging round calais

recedite

enricoh wrote: »

I'd bet she could help thousands of kids out there with 250k. Instead of one of the 'mainly Syrian, mainly 17 year old ' chancers that have been hanging round calais

Not even "mainly Syrian". Even Zappone admits her Calais group hail from various sub-saharan bandit countries such as Somalia.

There is a different group going to Ballaghadreen which are "mainly Syrian" and this other group actually includes women and children, so they probably are genuine refugees.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't seen any indication that the children we plan to take in have no identification. That aside, is it your position that someone who has lost their passport should be permanently abandoned?

My position with regard to the Calais residents is different to my position regarding refugees. My position regarding refugees is considerably more nuanced.

Let's be honest. The Calais "children" managed to make their way to Calais, refused to register for asylum in France, and massed at Calais in the hope of
sneaking into Britain. They did not apply for asylum in France, or, indeed, in Ireland.

If they had a legal right to enter the UK, it is not unreasonable to assume they would have entered the UK legally. Ditto for Ireland.

Accordingly, I don't believe these "children" have a legal right to asylum.
Neither do I believe people should be rewarded for either bully-boy tactics, or illegality. Certainly not to the tune of (something less than) €275,000 p.a.