Illegal immigrant followed student home and raped her

quintana76

Omackeral wrote: »

You mean a gang of rapists? An organised grooming gang. A case that shocked the entire U.K. and further afield. Yeah, how dare they.

The future awaits. it has been said that women don't support one another in certain circumstances. Merkel has outwowed them all. Enemy of her own sex I would suggest. Shame on her.

JenovaProject

Chrongen wrote: »

I doubt you'll see any Arsenal fans bitching about Ozil.

I suggest you check out the comments on his Facebook page.
Specifically the ones under the pictures of him cuddling his beloved pet dog.
Plenty of Muslim Arsenal fans are very unhappy with him touching a dog.
Seemingly it's filthy for the more extreme elements of this religion.

end of the road

tretorn wrote: »

Well of course a white European woman is going to be concerned about her interests and her daughters and granddaughters interests before the interests of immigrants wanting to leave their ****hole countries to come to developed countries.

she could also be concerned about both at the same time. but we aren't going to know either way unless we are mind readers. i don't know about but i'm certainly not a mind reader.

tretorn wrote: »

Do you seriously think Arabs and Tunisians and Afghans and Eygptians and all the rest of the muslim countries care about white Europeans of any gender,

maybe you could ask them?

tretorn wrote: »

ask them what they think of homosexual people for a start.

perhapse they all have different viewpoints on homosexuals? some of our own wouldn't exactly be tolerant of homosexuals.

tretorn wrote: »

Why are we bending over backwards to appease these people who want to come here and avail of everything we have to offer while they have no intention of integrating or forsaking sharia law to abide by the laws the rest of us live under.

we aren't. and plenty of them do integrate. if some aren't integrating then that's for the authorities to deal with.

tretorn wrote: »

They have no problem abusing our laws by breaking them and using the free legal aid system for years to avoid legal deportation.

so no different to some of our own then? a number of our own break the law all over the place, have lots of convictions and are on the free legal aid a plenty.

tretorn wrote: »

Can I just up sticks and head to Nigeria if I want to and just stay there with my hand out for social welfare and a house.

you can try if you like. all though what relevance it has to this thread i don't know.

Chrongen

JenovaProject wrote: »

I suggest you check out the comments on his Facebook page.
Specifically the ones under the pictures of him cuddling his beloved pet dog.
Plenty of Muslim Arsenal fans are very unhappy with him touching a dog.
Seemingly it's filthy for the more extreme elements of this religion.

Yeah, actually, I missed that.

He almost burst into flames too when champagne was splashed on him after the Bayern game.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Omackeral wrote: »

It's not really used here in any parlance I've ever heard. I see it written on boards quite a bit by posters but that's usually by people looking to accuse others of racism or take offense and plenty of it imagined. In fact, I rarely really see people use the term pejoratively tbh. As an aside, my only other exposure to anyone using ''brown'' as a descriptor is in the States, where I've heard it refer to Hispanic people, often by themselves.

Hispanic Crime is recorded as White in the States.


Causcoid is a diverse breed. An Indian is a caucasian just like a Swede. It's more to do with body and facial features and hair growth patterns. Not skin colour.


Asians and negroids differ from Causcoids.


The reason why the term brown people annoys me is because it makes me think that people are trying to create divisions.

CosmicJay

I'd love to see a common sense approach applied to our asylum seekers.

Each person applying for asylum is allowed to stay in decent accommodation and be provided with a dignified standard of living until their case is heard.

A case should be judged on the persons point of origin, where they first entered the EU, the reason for them fleeing, if they face an actual threat or persecution.

I feel that they should be judged on how they integrate with Irish societal norms and traditions.

I think if any previous convictions for sexual assault or GBH should bar them from claiming asylum.

They should be allowed one appeal and if that fails be deported in a timely manner once they've exhausted all avenues.

If they do succeed to gain asylum they enter on bond that if they commit any egregious crimes that they will deported back to the origin country immediately.

Its been amazing to read through this thread and see the usual group of people somehow arguing to let an convicted illegal immigrant stay and commit more crimes and calling people who disagree with them racists and nazi's.

Personally if a politician was to run on a campaign of immediately deporting any illegal immigrants who have overstayed their welcome and would actively reform the asylum system to rid it of current abuses I would seriously consider voting for them. Guess Im a nazi.

Absolute madness.

end of the road

CosmicJay wrote: »

A case should be judged on the persons point of origin, where they first entered the EU, the reason for them fleeing, if they face an actual threat or persecution.

that is already the case from what i understand.

CosmicJay wrote: »

I feel that they should be judged on how they integrate with Irish societal norms and traditions.

not viable given quite a lot of irish people don't integrate with irish traditions and don't take part in them.

CosmicJay wrote: »

Its been amazing to read through this thread and see the usual group of people somehow arguing to let an convicted illegal immigrant stay and commit more crimes and calling people who disagree with them racists and nazi's.

you must have been reading a different thread as i have not read anyone being called racist for stating they don't want criminals to remain.

The Red Earl wrote: »

The lunatics run the asylum. A poster on here called German women Nazis for protesting against migrants who commit violence in Germany. Welcome to inhuman western liberalism.

nope, never happened.

The Red Earl wrote: »

I often wonder how they'd feel if someone they care about was raped by an illegal immigrant?

the same as if they were raped by anyone else. the perpetrator should be caught and locked up for as long as is possible.

The Red Earl

end of the road wrote: »

nope, never happened.

the same as if they were raped by anyone else. the perpetrator should be caught and locked up for as long as is possible.

Yes it did.

And deported right? Even if his 'human' rights were at risk? And of course without illegal immigration the rape wouldn't have happened, just like the poor girl we're talking about here.

Captain Obvious

CosmicJay wrote: »

I'd love to see a common sense approach applied to our asylum seekers.

Each person applying for asylum is allowed to stay in decent accommodation and be provided with a dignified standard of living until their case is heard.

A case should be judged on the persons point of origin, where they first entered the EU, the reason for them fleeing, if they face an actual threat or persecution.

I feel that they should be judged on how they integrate with Irish societal norms and traditions.

I think if any previous convictions for sexual assault or GBH should bar them from claiming asylum.

They should be allowed one appeal and if that fails be deported in a timely manner once they've exhausted all avenues.

If they do succeed to gain asylum they enter on bond that if they commit any egregious crimes that they will deported back to the origin country immediately.

Most of that is already how it works in the majority of cases.

CosmicJay wrote: »

Its been amazing to read through this thread and see the usual group of people somehow arguing to let an convicted illegal immigrant stay and commit more crimes and calling people who disagree with them racists and nazi's.

Nobody did that.

CosmicJay wrote: »

Personally if a politician was to run on a campaign of immediately deporting any illegal immigrants who have overstayed their welcome and would actively reform the asylum system to rid it of current abuses I would seriously consider voting for them. Guess Im a nazi.

They're called Identity Ireland.

CosmicJay

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Most of that is already how it works in the majority of cases.



Nobody did that.



They're called Identity Ireland.

Well if that is the way it is now then why did this situation happen in the first place?

The fact is the current system is broken, as we are letting in criminals and letting them stay.

Many people in our system are here 7 - 8 - 9 years after numerous appeals. A person can then apply for subsidiary protection and then start the asylum process all over again.

So the fact is, its not that way. Not at all. A previous poster linked data that only 20% of rejected cases are being deported. Why are people who were refused to stay and not deported in a timely manner?

Ulysses Gaze

CosmicJay wrote: »

Well if that is the way it is now then why did this situation happen in the first place?

The fact is the current system is broken, as we are letting in criminals and letting them stay.

Many people in our system are here 7 - 8 - 9 years after numerous appeals. A person can then apply for subsidiary protection and then start the asylum process all over again.

So the fact is, its not that way. Not at all. A previous poster linked data that only 20% of rejected cases are being deported. Why are people who were refused to stay and not deported in a timely manner?

Because there are a whole swathe of people - in the legal profession and in charitable advocacy groups - making a very nice, tidy living from the never-ending asylum appeals process.

Captain Obvious

CosmicJay wrote: »

Well if that is the way it is now then why did this situation happen in the first place?

There's always exceptions and loopholes to laws. Generally they get plugged up after they are found.

CosmicJay wrote: »

The fact is the current system is broken, as we are letting in criminals and letting them stay.

No we aren't.

CosmicJay wrote: »

Many people in our system are here 7 - 8 - 9 years after numerous appeals. A person can then apply for subsidiary protection and then start the asylum process all over again.

Pretty sure that's not how it works.

CosmicJay wrote: »

So the fact is, its not that way. Not at all. A previous poster linked data that only 20% of rejected cases are being deported. Why are people who were refused to stay and not deported in a timely manner?

No, only 20% of rejected cases have deportation orders issued. That's forced deportations. It doesn't include people who leave voluntarily after their application is rejected.

CosmicJay

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Pretty sure that's not how it works.

So how does it work?

CosmicJay

baylah17 wrote: »

The no go zones are all in the heads of the demented, they dont exist in real life, but sure never let the facts get in the way of a hate filled lie.

https://www.rt.com/news/419978-germany-merkel-no-go-zones/

Hate that.

quintana76

enricoh wrote: »

Now now jmayo, how dare u assume that the pakistanis convicted in the rape gangs in England are Muslim? Only 96% of pakistanis are Muslim and so it was just your inherent racism that led you to assume that. So try to "desperately backtrack under that rock" of yours!

And in the name of God will you stop posting damning mugshots of the rapists and the fact that their victims were never Pakistani or Muslim, the open all borders crowd on here are in meltdown!

They are beginning to lose their pomp. They are becoming concerned that victory is no longer certain. Check out Fintan's recent defensive articles in the Saturday Irish Times. He is beginning to protest too much. He must have seen some writings on the wall of the lane behind the exclusive offices of the IT. The people must be speaking for once. He seems for once, to feel the need to react. Normally well BELOW his paygrade.

cournioni

baylah17 wrote: »

I doubt that.
But most reasonable caring people would care more for what happened to the victim than to the nationality of the attacker.

Most people undoubtedly have sympathy for the victim and many of those people also want to see the possibility of it happening again lessened by closing the doors to (or sending back) illegals who may or may not be previous offenders and have no right to be here. Not rocket science.

I am perfectly happy with people who come here legitimately and abide by our laws. I am not happy with people living here illegally and breaking our laws.

dodderangler

Problem is that people are afraid to say the truth in case they're branded a racist.
Look at a lot of Europe with rape cases. On the rise in so many countries and people won't say the truth.

Pepefrogok

So now Merkel has admitted that no go zones exist and we should call them by their name is that it now accepted fact around here?

Kivaro

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yeah damn those Nazis for concern over previously safe areas becoming no gone zones.

baylah17 wrote: »

The no go zones are all in the heads of the demented, they dont exist in real life, but sure never let the facts get in the way of a hate filled lie.

It's amusing when the open borders liberals make statements and regard them as facts irrespective of the reality, and to disagree with them then you are automatically a racist, a Nazi, or demented. This mode of deflection is really getting old.

Chancellor Angela Merkel stated publicly recently that no go areas do exist in Germany and they need to be called for what they are. Wonder if she is a Nazi due to this statement?

Hector Savage

CosmicJay wrote: »

https://www.rt.com/news/419978-germany-merkel-no-go-zones/

Hate that.

Yeah but these are no go zones because of neo nazi skinheads - this is the real threat to western europe.

topper75

Not nice chaps we know, but by threat to western europe - do you mean pop concert attacks or sexual assault etc?

Captain Obvious

CosmicJay wrote: »

So how does it work?

You have to have grounds for an appeal. The cases you read about where people have multiple appeals spanning years are when a particular point of law arises that gets escalated through the court system. The same thing happens in criminal and civil cases.

Kivaro wrote: »

It's amusing when the open borders liberals make statements and regard them as facts irrespective of the reality, and to disagree with them then you are automatically a racist, a Nazi, or demented. This mode of deflection is really getting old.

Indeed. And while we are on the topic, can you point to a single person who has advocated "open borders"? I've never seen anyone advocate it, on this site anyway. I've never seen anyone object to background checks or security measures either. Perhaps by "open borders" you mean something else though.

dav3

Kivaro wrote: »

It's amusing when the open borders liberals make statements and regard them as facts irrespective of the reality, and to disagree with them then you are automatically a racist, a Nazi, or demented. This mode of deflection is really getting old.

It's true, the real victims here are the racists and nazis.

What was this thread about again? Doesn't matter, she was probably asking for it anyway, am I right lads?

Has anybody tried to crowbar Soros and the nasty mean mainstream media into the discussion yet?

Kivaro

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Indeed. And while we are on the topic, can you point to a single person who has advocated "open borders"? I've never seen anyone advocate it, on this site anyway. I've never seen anyone object to background checks or security measures either. Perhaps by "open borders" you mean something else though.

2 mods over at the Politics Cafe 'openly' advocated for open borders on the immigration thread that caused the implosion of that forum. They are no longer mods but it was an imbalanced thread due to their views.
And there are other posts. Search and you will find them.

When you say that you haven't seen anyone object to background checks or security measures, that's very odd. If background checks/security measures were in place, then many would not object to non-EU economic migration if done at sustainable levels.

Captain Obvious

Kivaro wrote: »

2 mods over at the Politics Cafe 'openly' advocated for open borders on the immigration thread that caused the implosion of that forum. They are no longer mods but it was an imbalanced thread due to their views.
And there are other posts. Search and you will find them.

You made the claim. You find posts from that thread that advocate "open borders". No doubt you'll need to figure out a way to change the meaning of "open borders" so its definition fits what you find.

Kivaro wrote: »

When you say that you haven't seen anyone object to background checks or security measures, that's very odd. If background checks/security measures were in place, then many would not object to non-EU economic migration if done at sustainable levels.

The difference of opinion lies in what a background check should account for. Some people argue that being a muslim or from a muslim country is an indication of what type of person the applicant is. Others argue that judging a person by their nationality or by the religion they were born into is unnecessarily discriminatory. If I recall that particular thread, one person argued for dental checks to ascertain age. I could be mistake though.

Billy86

Somewhat ironically the only poster I can recall off hand supportive of fully open borders is Permabear, who is generally more on the conservative side of the fence.

CosmicJay

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You have to have grounds for an appeal. The cases you read about where people have multiple appeals spanning years are when a particular point of law arises that gets escalated through the court system. The same thing happens in criminal and civil cases.

Over 25% of our asylum seekers have been here for over 6 years and are on their third appeal. I don't understand why you want to try and say our current system for asylum is working. It clearly isn't.

“The process leading to deportation is extensive with many avenues of appeal, including judicial review in the High Court, open to persons subject to deportation orders.


I don't think you are familiar with the system we are talking about,

Captain Obvious

CosmicJay wrote: »

Over 25% of our asylum seekers have been here for over 6 years and are on their third appeal. I don't understand why you want to try and say our current system for asylum is working. It clearly isn't.

I didn't say it was working. It's not. But I think it's down to poor implementation as opposed to the process itself being broken.

CosmicJay wrote: »

“The process leading to deportation is extensive with many avenues of appeal, including judicial review in the High Court, open to persons subject to deportation orders.


I don't think you are familiar with the system we are talking about,

You can appeal a rejected application. If you fail in that appeal you can look for a judicial review only in cases where proper law or procedure wasn't followed. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

Kivaro

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No doubt you'll need to figure out a way to change the meaning of "open borders" so its definition fits what you find.

Nonsensical response. But it sounds like a moving goalpost.

Sand

Billy86 wrote: »

Somewhat ironically the only poster I can recall off hand supportive of fully open borders is Permabear, who is generally more on the conservative side of the fence.

Libertarian I thought, though has moved to more traditional conservatism on some topics last I saw. Libertarians reject any form of traditional government, everyone is an individual, all relationships are contractual at most. Borders of any sort do not exist as they require an army to defend them, and an army requires a government so that is right out. It's an interesting viewpoint to approach a problem from, but its not a practical idea. So impractical ideas like open borders can find a home there, but they also find homes in other impractical political philosophies which have gained far more real world influence.

Captain Obvious

Kivaro wrote: »

Nonsensical response. But it sounds like a moving goalpost.

Still waiting on a post from someone that favours "open borders".

CosmicJay

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I didn't say it was working. It's not. But I think it's down to poor implementation as opposed to the process itself being broken.



You can appeal a rejected application. If you fail in that appeal you can look for a judicial review only in cases where proper law or procedure wasn't followed. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

So even though the law industry and the Asylum appeals tribunal are calling for an overhaul of the system due to the amount of abuses and endless appeals and the quite substantial cost to the state your respoinse is,

Nah its grand?

Captain Obvious

CosmicJay wrote: »

So even though the law industry and the Asylum appeals tribunal are calling for an overhaul of the system due to the amount of abuses and endless appeals and the quite substantial cost to the state your respoinse is,

Nah its grand?

This is what I said

I didn't say it was working. It's not.

How did you get "it's grand" from that?