Large Nigerian gang in Ireland involved in worldwide money laundering

Beechwoodspark

DChancer wrote: »

Voters elected her and will probably re-elect her.
Same voters that time and again refuse to vote for the alt right xenophobic extremists who claim to speak for the ordinary people

I VERY much doubt she will be re elected.

Thousands of her constituents are disgusted and feel betrayed by her activities since she barely scraped in last time. They will be looking to get rid of her next time out. You just watch.

Beechwoodspark

jay0109 wrote: »

4,463 1st preference votes from 66.5k valid votes with a quota of 11,212 to get in.
Got in on the 16th count without reaching the quota.

And now she's a Minister responsible for a budget of millions. Gotta love democracy

It’s unreal. She should resign in disgrace just on that basis alone.

Autochange

Kivaro wrote: »

And Zappone definitely knows how to spend those (our) millions.
For the initial 40 out of the 200 young migrant men she is bringing in from Calais, the cost will be €11.5 million. There are estimates of €110 million of our money to be spent on the full 200 when they get here. The money will be spent on services and support for these young men, including legal and therapeutic interventions, accommodation, health, dental care, mental health services and other specialist support.

And don't forget when she said in a television interview in Calais that she would like to take all of them when talking about the migrants in the camps there. The only way to put an end to her ultra-liberal madness is to make sure she is not re-elected in the next election.

Only in Ireland. A complete joke of a country. We will reap what she does.

aroundthehouse

law onto themselves

jay0109

Kivaro wrote: »

And Zappone definitely knows how to spend those (our) millions.
For the initial 40 out of the 200 young migrant men she is bringing in from Calais, the cost will be €11.5 million. There are estimates of €110 million of our money to be spent on the full 200 when they get here. The money will be spent on services and support for these young men, including legal and therapeutic interventions, accommodation, health, dental care, mental health services and other specialist support.

And don't forget when she said in a television interview in Calais that she would like to take all of them when talking about the migrants in the camps there. The only way to put an end to her ultra-liberal madness is to make sure she is not re-elected in the next election.

Tusla said they expect 75% of those 'child' migrants coming here from Calais will actually be adults based on similar findings in the UK and Sweden. But more will be brought in....it's all about the ideology , that has to trump everything else including common sense.

ArthurDayne

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So I started at the beginning of the thread and as usual it starts off with the facts and common sense, but not long before the usual suspects arrive trying to derail matters...

Peregrinus wrote: »

What Phoebas said.  And also maybe because the question of where the perpetrators come from is the least interesting and relevant part of the story.  Would this be any less of a problem if the perpetrators were from Newtownmountkennedy rather than from Nigeria, or from West Cork rather than from West Africa?

Ah whataboutery and the inference that any who question or discuss cases like this are "racist" :rolleyes:  

Seriously, when did Ireland become America with it's obsession over racial divides?

Speaking of Americans...

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I have an issue with her using my country as a guinea pig to do things she wouldn't get away with in her own birthplace.

And the fools who elected her are worse.

+1

As I've said before, Zappone is a dangerous politician. One who transplants this stuff from her homeland to a country where it has no relevance, but who also uses her position in Government to further her own personal agenda on matters like immigration, or the argument she tried to start over US pre-clearance because she doesn't like Donald Trump.

Were it not for Enda Kenny's ego (and his determination to become the only FG Taoiseach ever to get a second term.. by any means necessary!) she, Shane Ross and the others who he made deals with would never have had the opportunity to cause the damage they have.

As for this latest story and the criminals involved.. arrest them, try them and if convicted, send them all on a plane back home and put them on a watch-list to ensure they don't get back in. I see no reason why the Irish taxpayer should have to foot their undoubtedly short and lax prison sentences as well.

As we've seen elsewhere in Europe, it's time that those of us who don't buy into the liberal virtue-signalling and dangerous agendas they are trying to enact start making our voices heard... not just on forums like this or Twitter etc, but when the TD's start calling to the door at some point  in the next few months.

I think immigration and the dangerous of letting anyone with a sob story in without checks or limits will become THE most important election issue in the next 5/10 years, and we need to start preparing for it now.

As it stands, does Ireland let people in without checks or limits?  Several thousand are refused entry each year -- in fact some 28,000 have been turned away since 2008 (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-28-000-non-eu-citizens-refused-entry-since-2008-1.3388429?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fmore-than-28-000-non-eu-citizens-refused-entry-since-2008-1.3388429).  


This isn't to say that immigration system is perfect or that we must never consider the economic resources of the country when determining our immigration policy -- but it is irritating when people cry out about they are opposed to 'unrestricted'/'uncontrolled' immigration on the apparent assumption that the so-called Left advocates unrestricted immigration.  Just because someone does not agree with one's view on how restrictive immigration should be, it does not mean they support unrestricted immigration.

Grayson

Odhinn wrote: »

Sorry, but could you clarify what point you're trying to make there?

Did you read the story? That woman was treated horribly.

In her complaint, it was stated that Ms Thomas had been a staff nurse at Beaumont since 2004, completed a post-graduate diploma in respiratory nursing and was undertaking a masters in the same subject. It was stated that she applied for specialist and management jobs at every opportunity but was overlooked or refused.

The complaint said that when she raised the issue of racial discrimination, the hospital did not accept any responsibility and suggested the problem did not lie with it but rather with the overseas nurses and the claimant.

The Inmo set out the history of the jobs Ms Thomas had applied for and noted that she had more overall experience, specialised experience and qualifications than the successful candidates who, with one exception, were all Irish.

The case she opened was dismissed. The reason was because they adjourned the case and said she could provide evidence at a later date, then never scheduled the later date and then dismissed the case because she hadn't provided any evidence.

Odhinn

Grayson wrote: »

Did you read the story? That woman was treated horribly.

I did, and it would appear so. However why it was posted or what point it was supposed to make is unclear.

jmayo

Dr Brown wrote: »

Nigeria isn't sending their best to Ireland.

Ah ffs don't you know that is Syria where all the doctors, scientists and engineers are originating.

DChancer wrote: »

The only opinion that counts is the ballot box.
All evidence from the ballot box says that irish electors reject xenophobia , Racism and right wing bigoted rhetoric.
If you don't agree well test your own theory and run for election against Minister Zappone and let's see who gets the most votes.

When we start experiencing more of the problems and issues that other countries have had things will change.
Of course you will just claim it's because the people are now racist and it's all the fault of the Russian.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nope. That was the Tory party. UKIP never got beyond 2 MP's.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Down to Cameron being a weak leader more than anything else.

You see this is the thing, you cannot accept that the likes of UKIP have an effect and can affect major change.

It is probably due to the fact you cannot understand why anyone would vote for that party, for someone like Farage.

I know it would anathema for you to admit that Farage actually has had a huge influence on Britain's future.
It is much more palatable probably to claim it is all down to poor Tory leadership.
That is less than half the story.

And that is ultimately the failing of one side of these arguments.
It is a story of over estimation of their own opinions and an overwhelming sense of arrogance towards the opposition.
It played out in the UK, in the US and in European countries.

jmayo

ArthurDayne wrote: »

As it stands, does Ireland let people in without checks or limits? 

Ehh need I remind you of the gent that on the streets of Dundalk that killed a legitimate immigrant to our state ?

How did he get here ?

What happened to the lads that hopped out of the truck in Laois ?

ArthurDayne wrote: »

..
but it is irritating when people cry out about they are opposed to 'unrestricted'/'uncontrolled' immigration on the apparent assumption that the so-called Left advocates unrestricted immigration.  Just because someone does not agree with one's view on how restrictive immigration should be, it does not mean they support unrestricted immigration.

Ok do you want to take in minors, with the no proof of identity or age, from Calais ?

Do you want to take in people "rescued" from boats off the coast of Libya ?
Again mainly young men with no proof of identity or background checks.

Do you want to take in people who have been trafficed across to Greece from Turkey ?

And before you throw out the usual refrain about Syria.
It is openly admitted the vast majority of the ones mentioned above in either Calais or coming from Libya are not Syrian.
Yes they may originate in some warzone, some backwards sh**hole, but does that mean we take everybody from those areas ?

I know someone will chime in about doing background checks and verification before letting someone in.
But I am seriously genuinely interested how you can background check a young lad who claims they are from Somalia, Eritrea or Afghanistan ?

How do you background check someone from Syria ?
Do they phone Assad's secret police for information ?

What do we know about the "18 year old Egyptian" that killed Yosuke Sasaki ?

ArthurDayne

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh need I remind you of the gent that on the streets of Dundalk that killed a legitimate immigrant to our state ?

How did he get here ?

What happened to the lads that hopped out of the truck in Laois ?

Do you want to take in minors, with the no proof of identity or age, from Calais ?

Do you want to take in people "rescued" from boats off the coast of Libya ?
Again mainly young men with no proof of identity or background checks.

Do you want to take in people who have been trafficed across to Greece from Turkey ?

And before you throw out the usual refrain about Syria.
It is openly admitted the vast majority of the ones mentioned above in either Calais or coming from Libya are not Syrian.
Yes they may originate in some warzone, some backwards sh**hole, but does that mean we take everybody from those areas ?

I know someone will chime in about doing background checks and verification before letting someone in.
But I am seriously genuinely interested how you can background check a young lad who claims they are from Somalia, Eritrea or Afghanistan ?

How do you background check someone from Syria ?
Do they phone Assad's secret police for information ?

What do we know about the "18 year old Egyptian" that killed Yosuke Sasaki ?

None of these things mean that our immigration system is unrestricted. We have laws in this country against murder, rape, theft etc. -- so simply because people commit murder, rape or theft does not mean that they are 'unrestricted' in doing so. Where such crimes happen and a lapse in standards of policing or shortcomings in the justice system are at play, then those must be addressed -- but it does not mean that murder, rape or theft are any less illegal or any less 'restricted'.

The same applies to our immigration system. No system is flawless, and every system is open to abuse or weakness. Where there are shortcomings (i.e. illegal migrants getting entry or undocumented asylum seekers committing crime) then we must try to address these shortcomings. But it doesn't mean immigration is 'unrestricted' -- saying this is just pure hyperbole which doesn't help the conversation at all.

The Syrian refugee / migrant crisis exposed flaws and shortcomings in Europe's immigration and asylum systems. That is undeniable. But it was, and is, also a humanitarian crisis -- regardless of whether there are many who are trying to profit from or abuse the helping hand. It is not easy to get these things right, it is not easy to strike the right balance between doing our bit to help our fellow man and ensuring that offering this help does not have some adverse consequences.

Galwayguy35

seamus wrote: »

This is her country just as much as it is yours.

If you don't like it, go run for election. A gay woman born in the US came to live over here and went on to became the Minister for Children.

What's your excuse?

She became an Irish citizen, America is her birthplace and her country and those are the facts no matter how you try to spin it so no it's not her country as much as it is mine.


I'd also be interested to know how many manboys from Calais she has housed in her own well off neighbourhood.

NIMBY

Beechwoodspark

She didn’t even meet the feckin quota

Mr. teddywinkles

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He has a cherrypicked example which he will now use to judge entire demographics with.

Just like he's cherry picked. A balanced agruement so

jmayo

ArthurDayne wrote: »

None of these things mean that our immigration system is unrestricted. We have laws in this country against murder, rape, theft etc. -- so simply because people commit murder, rape or theft does not mean that they are 'unrestricted' in doing so. Where such crimes happen and a lapse in standards of policing or shortcomings in the justice system are at play, then those must be addressed -- but it does not mean that murder, rape or theft are any less illegal or any less 'restricted'.

The same applies to our immigration system. No system is flawless, and every system is open to abuse or weakness. Where there are shortcomings (i.e. illegal migrants getting entry or undocumented asylum seekers committing crime) then we must try to address these shortcomings. But it doesn't mean immigration is 'unrestricted' -- saying this is just pure hyperbole which doesn't help the conversation at all.

The Syrian refugee / migrant crisis exposed flaws and shortcomings in Europe's immigration and asylum systems. That is undeniable. But it was, and is, also a humanitarian crisis -- regardless of whether there are many who are trying to profit from or abuse the helping hand. It is not easy to get these things right, it is not easy to strike the right balance between doing our bit to help our fellow man and ensuring that offering this help does not have some adverse consequences.

You waffled and still have not answered any of my questions.

Yes we know that we have restricted immigration at the moment and a system that hasn't really handled "asylum seekers" in a timely fashion.

You talk about shortcomings, what are they in your opinion ?

But if it was up to a lot of people, especially those in the media, and some posters around here we would have unrestricted entry for all those in the so called humanitarian crisis.

You are beginning to sound like the ones that want to bring in large numbers, ala the effectively open borders brigade.
You talk about "us doing our bit" and the Syrian refugees.

You refused to answer any of my questions as to who and how many we should allow in.

And that is typical of the ones that say they want to bring in refugees/migrants.

To me that is advocating open borders.

DChancer

jmayo wrote: »

Y

Yes we know that we have restricted immigration at the moment and a system that hasn't really handled "asylum seekers" in a timely fashion.

To me that is advocating open borders.

So having restricted immigration equals open borders
mmm

jmayo

DChancer wrote: »

So having restricted immigration equals open borders
mmm

Ah yes the facetious answer.

You talk about restrictions, but I bet you will not answer what they should be or how in gods name they will be implemented.
All we will hear from you is about how poor off these people are and how we have to help them.


You know we have huge holes in our current system where for some reason we take a lot of people at face value, we have people ala the gent in Dundalk turning up here and being asked to go to immigration control rather than being dumped into a police car and taken somewhere.

But if people like yourself have your way then we will have effectively open borders.

Merkel through her little invitation was throwing out the welcome matt and opening the borders.
Then she and all the other "well meaning ar**es" lambasted the likes of Orban for actually not agreeing to open borders.

ArthurDayne

jmayo wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

None of these things mean that our immigration system is unrestricted.  We have laws in this country against murder, rape, theft etc. -- so simply because people commit murder, rape or theft does not mean that they are 'unrestricted' in doing so.  Where such crimes happen and a lapse in standards of policing or shortcomings in the justice system are at play, then those must be addressed -- but it does not mean that murder, rape or theft are any less illegal or any less 'restricted'.  

The same applies to our immigration system. No system is flawless, and every system is open to abuse or weakness.  Where there are shortcomings (i.e. illegal migrants getting entry or undocumented asylum seekers committing crime) then we must try to address these shortcomings.  But it doesn't mean immigration is 'unrestricted' -- saying this is just pure hyperbole which doesn't help the conversation at all.  

The Syrian refugee / migrant crisis exposed flaws and shortcomings in Europe's immigration and asylum systems.  That is undeniable.  But it was, and is, also a humanitarian crisis -- regardless of whether there are many who are trying to profit from or abuse the helping hand. It is not easy to get these things right, it is not easy to strike the right balance between doing our bit to help our fellow man and ensuring that offering this help does not have some adverse consequences.

You waffled and still have not answered any of my questions.

Yes we know that we have restricted immigration at the moment and a system that hasn't really handled "asylum seekers" in a timely fashion.

You talk about shortcomings, what are they in your opinion ?

But if it was up to a lot of people, especially those in the media, and some posters around here we would have unrestricted entry for all those in the so called humanitarian crisis.

You are beginning to sound like the ones that want to bring in large numbers, ala the effectively open borders brigade.
You talk about "us doing our bit" and the Syrian refugees.

You refused to answer any of my questions as to who and how many we should allow in.

And that is typical of the ones that say they want to bring in refugees/migrants.

To me that is advocating open borders.

I merely wanted to address the first initial point before getting drawn into your questions -- that we do not have an unrestricted immigration policy.  I hear this all the time -- people banging on about open borders and unlimited immigration even if the objective reality does not reflect that.  I welcome the fact however that you have acknowledged that the claims of unrestricted immigration policy are untrue.  

The 2015 crisis exposed flaws in how European nations both co-ordinate their response and share the burden in respect of a major movement of refugees and migrants to its external borders.   But we must also remember that this was an unprecedented crisis in EU history -- the biggest displacement of people to European borders of our time.  In 2015 and 2016, 1.3 million refugees crossed the sea to Europe, with thousands having died in recent years making the journey.  We are talking about the drowned bodies of human beings, many of them fleeing war and many of them little children, floating in the same waters where wealthy Europeans sunbathe and sport.  Now -- I know that this image is a much less comfortable one than the image many conjure of boats full of sexually deviant would-be Islamic terrorists to make themselves feel better about their view that we should do nothing to help -- but this is a humanitarian crisis as well as a massive challenge for European immigration and asylum authorities. 

So it is in this context of an unprecedented movement of people that we have to be somewhat cognisant that Europe simply was not adequately prepared and co-ordinated to deal with the crisis.  The result was that countries like Greece and Italy shouldered a heavier burden, while other countries like Germany (to their credit) took on a greater number of refugees but lacked proper strategy in doing so (e.g. a lack of integration strategy and a failure to convince Germans of the merits of the policy).  Much of this has been or is being addressed -- Germany has tightened its previously lenient entry barriers for refugees while there is a much greater focus on co-ordinating Europe's capability of handling these situations as well as protecting the external borders. 

Some of your questions however are just so simplistically posed as to be almost impossible to answer.  Who should we take in? How many should we take in? Our asylum policy should be based on our economic capacity to provide for and attempt to integrate a given number of genuine refugees.  Ascertaining who is genuine should be based on the full remit of checks and resources available to the authorities.  Those who are not genuinely in need of asylum or fail to meet requirements should be refused entry. But it's always going to be imperfect to a certain extent --- as long as Europe remains the wealthy developed place which it is, people will want to come here for a chance of a better and safer life (just as many Europeans once fled from poverty, persecution and war to the United States).

marieholmfan

It is time to make it explicitly clear that for most people Asylum will be time bound.

jmayo

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I merely wanted to address the first initial point before getting drawn into your questions -- that we do not have an unrestricted immigration policy.  I hear this all the time -- people banging on about open borders and unlimited immigration even if the objective reality does not reflect that.  I welcome the fact however that you have acknowledged that the claims of unrestricted immigration policy are untrue.  

Yes open borders may not be in effect in Ireland but by God there are the aim of some and have been as good as in for some European states.

When merkel, the Irish, the EU and the usual media brigade got onto Orban they were basically complaining that he was saying no to open borders.

How many people are basically saying we should just take refugees/migrants in.
Greece and Italy have effectively experienced open borders for a while now and the NGOs, the media, the celebrities are now lambasting Italy for clamping down on the boatloads arriving and them being a dumping ground.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The 2015 crisis exposed flaws in how European nations both co-ordinate their response and share the burden in respect of a major movement of refugees and migrants to its external borders.

Why should we share the burden ?
Merkel threw out the matt, be it for well meaning reasons or other more dubious ones, and started a tsunami and then wants everyone else to pick up the pieces.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

   But we must also remember that this was an unprecedented crisis in EU history -- the biggest displacement of people to European borders of our time.  In 2015 and 2016, 1.3 million refugees crossed the sea to Europe, with thousands having died in recent years making the journey.  We are talking about the drowned bodies of human beings, many of them fleeing war and many of them little children, floating in the same waters where wealthy Europeans sunbathe and sport.  Now -- I know that this image is a much less comfortable one than the image many conjure of boats full of sexually deviant would-be Islamic terrorists to make themselves feel better about their view that we should do nothing to help -- but this is a humanitarian crisis as well as a massive challenge for European immigration and asylum authorities. 

Are you also including the ones fooked out of the boat(s) because they were christian ?

Why did the boats stop going to Australia ?
If you continously accept people you are just inviting more.

And sinking our own countries to help Africa, Middle East, parts of Asia is not the answer.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So it is in this context of an unprecedented movement of people that we have to be somewhat cognisant that Europe simply was not adequately prepared and co-ordinated to deal with the crisis.  The result was that countries like Greece and Italy shouldered a heavier burden, while other countries like Germany (to their credit) took on a greater number of refugees but lacked proper strategy in doing so (e.g. a lack of integration strategy and a failure to convince Germans of the merits of the policy). 

You actually think Germany was right inviting in a million odd.
Oh dear fooking god.
What integration strategy do you propose for people WHO DO NOT WANT TO INTEGRATE and which is evident from the experience of numerous other countries ?

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Some of your questions however are just so simplistically posed as to be almost impossible to answer.  Who should we take in? How many should we take in? Our asylum policy should be based on our economic capacity to provide for and attempt to integrate a given number of genuine refugees. 
Ascertaining who is genuine should be based on the full remit of checks and resources available to the authorities.  Those who are not genuinely in need of asylum or fail to meet requirements should be refused entry.
But it's always going to be imperfect to a certain extent --- as long as Europe remains the wealthy developed place which it is, people will want to come here for a chance of a better and safer life (just as many Europeans once fled from poverty, persecution and war to the United States).

Again waffle with the usual heart string tugging with the reference to USA.
You forgot the coffin ships for maximum effect.

We do not have the economic capacity to help ourselves or have you not noticed our health service, our housing shortages, our education facilities ?
We are one of the most indebted countries in the world.
And we are not the only country in Europe with huge problems.
And for everyone brought and kept in Europe multiples could be helped in their home countries or near to their home countries.

Full remit of checks?
You mean like the ones that allowed a Tunisian thief wander around Europe before he decided to slaughter some people in Germany?
Or perhaps like the ones that allowed a woman stay in Ireland for years and cost this country millions under the pretence that her children were going to be subject to FGM and that she had lost a child already due to FGM.

I asked questions as to how many and from where ?
I asked questions as to how the hell you check someones background from a war torn area.

How the hell can anyone really verify Mohammad from Aleppo is not Kazim from Homs who is wanted for theft and beating up a woman ?
I can see Assad's authorities going out of their way to trawl through the paperwork to get him back. :rolleyes:

How the hell can anyone verify Hamid from Asmara is a stand up guy and not really a scumbag who raped his 12 year old cousin?

There was a difference fleeing to the US when it was a growing country, when they were crying out for manpower, when the country was expanding to what is happening today in Europe.

And for the life of me I don't think immigrants to the US picked states/cities based on their welfare capabilities ala those that choose Germany and Sweden. :rolleyes: