22 syrian families arrive in ireland, then what?

Ken.

Mod-The following are thread banned. Do not post in this thread again.

Leaving locked for 10 minutes so people can read this post.(ignorance will not be a defense).
Any more crap and it'll be thread bans or worse.


Omackeral
Try_harder
BBFAN
Sweetemotion

Yer Da sells Avon

'Gammon' is not a racist term. The intent behind its usage is to offend the target, based not on the colour of their skin, but on their attitudes. It's certainly dehumanising and I wouldn't be fond of throwing it around in an argument (any more than SJW, libtard, snowflake, etc), but describing it as 'racist' (and drawing ludicrous equivalence between it and the word 'Paki') ignores the fact that racial abuse is connected to wider structures of violence, dis-empowerment and oppression, and not merely about hurt feelings.

Robocop Corcoran

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

'Gammon' is not a racist term. The intent behind its usage is to offend the target, based not on the colour of their skin, but on their attitudes. It's certainly dehumanising and I wouldn't be fond of throwing it around in an argument (any more than SJW, libtard, snowflake, etc), but describing it as 'racist' (and drawing ludicrous equivalence between it and the word 'Paki') ignores the fact that racial abuse is connected to wider structures of violence, dis-empowerment and oppression, and not merely about hurt feelings.

This is boards.ie, you don't have to actually say anything racist to be called a racist. Or haven't you noticed?

PuppyMcPupFace

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

'Gammon' is not a racist term. The intent behind its usage is to offend the target, based not on the colour of their skin, but on their attitudes. It's certainly dehumanising and I wouldn't be fond of throwing it around in an argument (any more than SJW, libtard, snowflake, etc), but describing it as 'racist' (and drawing ludicrous equivalence between it and the word 'Paki') ignores the fact that racial abuse is connected to wider structures of violence, dis-empowerment and oppression, and not merely about hurt feelings.

You're wrong. On so many many levels.

Yer Da sells Avon

PuppyMcPupFace wrote: »

You're wrong. On so many many levels.

I'm afraid I'm right. Sorry about that.

Ash.J.Williams

Robocop Corcoran wrote: »

This is boards.ie, you don't have to actually say anything racist to be called a racist. Or haven't you noticed?

Welcome to boards new guy that hit the ground running

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-46679414

Forty migrants, including two children, have been rescued from boats in five separate incidents on Christmas Day in the English Channel.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1228/1019344-libya-migrants-spain/

Nearly 70 people have been intercepted in the past three days as they try to reach England by crossing one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.

What is the craic with the increase in migrants crossing the English channel ?
Why are they escaping from one developed country to another?

Remember the dead baby on the beach plastered all over the news? People said that a family/parent would never try a dangerous sea crossing with their kids unless it was absolutely necessary. Well this nonsense in the channel blows that out of the water.

Why arent the Syrians in another similar culture where they can assimilate relatively easily, where western donations will go ten times further. You would swear Ireland had money to burn and didnt have an accommodation crisis

DS86DS

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-46679414




https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1228/1019344-libya-migrants-spain/



What is the craic with the increase in migrants crossing the English channel ?
Why are they escaping from one developed country to another?

Remember the dead baby on the beach plastered all over the news? People said that a family/parent would never try a dangerous sea crossing with their kids unless it was absolutely necessary. Well this nonsense in the channel blows that out of the water.

Why arent the Syrians in another similar culture where they can assimilate relatively easily, where western donations will go ten times further. You would swear Ireland had money to burn and didnt have an accommodation crisis

A very good question. Isn't it funny how Sunni Islam hotspots like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt refuse to take in these immigrants during these "humanitarian disasters".

Donald Trump kinda had it right when he talked about other cultures laughing at modern America and Europe The Western World, with its butter soft Liberalism.....is a key target for mass immigration.



Donald Trump was right. Not only do countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey not take in these people...........

.....but people from that part of the world view the West, particularly Liberal Europe as a joke. You may think you are a compassionate, considerate and charitable Liberal.....but guess what there is no reprocity whether you like it or not

THESE PEOPLE VIEW EUROPE AS A JOKE .. THERE TO BE EXPLOITED N EVERY WAY CONCEIVABLE


Pat yourself on the back Leftists.....
.but in reality..... hardened Muslims laugh behind your back while they have designs on Europe.

WAKE UP LIBERALS.... YOU ARE ABOUT TO DESTROY EUROPE WHILE YOUR ENEMIES LAUGH AT YOUR NAIVETY

Ulysses Gaze

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

'Gammon' is not a racist term. The intent behind its usage is to offend the target, based not on the colour of their skin, but on their attitudes. It's certainly dehumanising and I wouldn't be fond of throwing it around in an argument (any more than SJW, libtard, snowflake, etc), but describing it as 'racist' (and drawing ludicrous equivalence between it and the word 'Paki') ignores the fact that racial abuse is connected to wider structures of violence, dis-empowerment and oppression, and not merely about hurt feelings.

Yet the posters that call others Gammon would probably go ape**** if they were labelled NPCs.

Robocop Corcoran

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-46679414




https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1228/1019344-libya-migrants-spain/



What is the craic with the increase in migrants crossing the English channel ?
Why are they escaping from one developed country to another?

Remember the dead baby on the beach plastered all over the news? People said that a family/parent would never try a dangerous sea crossing with their kids unless it was absolutely necessary. Well this nonsense in the channel blows that out of the water.

Why arent the Syrians in another similar culture where they can assimilate relatively easily, where western donations will go ten times further. You would swear Ireland had money to burn and didnt have an accommodation crisis

Apparently most of the migrants crossing the channel are Iranian and they arrived via Serbia after the Serbian government granted visa free travel between the two nations.They look more like tourists than migrants.

These people are economic migrants pure and simple and if they get into trouble on the crossing, tough **** they should be left there.

Robocop Corcoran

end of the road wrote: »

well the good news is that it's not tough **** they won't be left there.

Well seeing as Britain only have two patrol boats around that large area at any one time, there's a good chance they will be left there, at least until the boats arrive to fish their body's out of the sea.

Im sure the Navy will be involved soon and we'll have another taxi service in operation.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-46679414




https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1228/1019344-libya-migrants-spain/



What is the craic with the increase in migrants crossing the English channel ?
Why are they escaping from one developed country to another?

Remember the dead baby on the beach plastered all over the news? People said that a family/parent would never try a dangerous sea crossing with their kids unless it was absolutely necessary. Well this nonsense in the channel blows that out of the water.

Why arent the Syrians in another similar culture where they can assimilate relatively easily, where western donations will go ten times further. You would swear Ireland had money to burn and didnt have an accommodation crisis

because there is no similar country where it can be guaranteed that western donations would actually go to the refugees.

DS86DS wrote: »

A very good question. Isn't it funny how Sunni Islam hotspots like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt refuse to take in these immigrants during these "humanitarian disasters".


Donald Trump kinda had it right when he talked about other cultures laughing at modern America and Europe The Western World, with its butter soft Liberalism.....is a key target for mass immigration.



Donald Trump was right. Not only do countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey not only take in these people...........

.....but people from that part of the world view the West, particularly Liberal Europe as a joke. You may think you are a compassionate, considerate and charitable Liberal.....but guess what there is no reprocity whether you like it or not

THESE PEOPLE VIEW EUROPE AS A JOKE .. THERE TO BE EXPLOITED N EVERY WAY CONCEIVABLE


Pat yourself on the back Leftists.....
.but in reality..... hardened Muslims laugh behind your back while they have designs on Europe.

WAKE UP LIBERALS.... YOU ARE ABOUT TO DESTROY EUROPE WHILE YOUR ENEMIES LAUGH AT YOUR NAIVETY.

do you think refugees would want to go to saudi, regardless of how desperate they may be? somehow i'd doubt it very much, and i certainly wouldn't blame them.

Robocop Corcoran wrote: »

Apparently most of the migrants crossing the channel are Iranian and they arrived via Serbia after the Serbian government granted visa free travel between the two nations.They look more like tourists than migrants.

These people are economic migrants pure and simple and if they get into trouble on the crossing, tough **** they should be left there.

why should they be left there.

Robocop Corcoran

end of the road wrote: »

because there is no similar country where it can be guaranteed that western donations would actually go to the refugees.




do you think refugees would want to go to saudi, regardless of how desperate they may be? somehow i'd doubt it very much, and i certainly wouldn't blame them.



why should they be left there.

When we get a rare big storm in Ireland, people are told stay away from the beach areas dont swim in the sea etc, and idiots ignore that advice and go for a swim anyway and have to be rescued,emergency services are putting their lives at risk for idiots.

Kinda similar situation here these people ignore the warnings and put their own lives and the lives of the coast guards at risk by attempting to cross the channel illegally. They dont deserve to be rescued.

Secondly, rescuing these people and ferrying them to land is giving the rest of the refugees/economic migrants an invitation to do the same.

Mediterranean taxi service all over again.

StereoSound

The report estimates that there are between 400,000 and 800,000 so-called illegals from outside the European Economic Area living in the UK, and warns that should the UK’s immigration regime even appear to tighten after Brexit “the most obvious option would be to seek to exploit the Common Travel Area and come to Ireland”.

Were even 1 per cent of these to come to Ireland and claim asylum it could mean an additional 6,000 applicants, the briefing report states.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-500-asylum-seekers-have-been-granted-work-permits-1.3590215

We have given illegals amnesties before:

THE GOVERNMENT IS introducing a scheme that will offer a pathway for “undocumented” non-EU nationals living in Ireland to stay here.

The trial scheme is opened from today through the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service and lasts for three months.

The scheme is open to non-EU nationals who came to Ireland to study between January 2005 and December 2010 but who remain here and have no immigration permission.

https://www.thejournal.ie/immigration-student-visas-4285839-Oct2018/

StereoSound wrote: »

Over the years Ireland has been taking in refugees, how have they contributed to society ? Realistically what are the pros and cons of them coming here ? One thing is probably for sure, they will be claiming benefits for years and years to come because of this reason and that, maybe poor english stopping them from getting a job or other social reasons. This is a given really due to the idea that they are thrown into a country that they don't yet understand.

my bold^^

Census 2016 revealed that the unemployment rate for non-Irish nationals was nearly 3 per cent higher than Irish (12.5%) and stood at 15.4 per cent.

Figure 5.8 presents the unemployment rate by level of education attained. The graph shows the higher the education the lower unemployment rate for both groups. For example 7.8 per cent of Irish nationals who were educated to Advanced Certificate level were unemployed compared with 12.3 per cent of non-Irish nationals with the same level of education.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp7md/p7md/p7sea/


The UK has figures too - relevant if these people arrive in Ireland after Brexit in any percentage, also relevant as we would expect similar levels of skills or lack of skills among the migrants:

in 2017, just under 4% of White people were unemployed, compared with 8% of people from all other ethnic groups combined
the Pakistani/Bangladeshi ethnic group had the highest rate of unemployment in 2017 (10%), and the Other White group had the lowest rate (4%)
in every region in England, Wales and Scotland, unemployment rates were higher for people from ethnic minorities (other than White ethnic minorities) compared with White people; these differences were largest in Yorkshire and The Humber, North West, South West, and the West Midlands

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/unemployment-and-economic-inactivity/unemployment/latest

Over in Australia the Middle Eastern group - a category I havent seen listed in Irish and UK statistics -

MIDDLE Eastern migrants are piling on to the dole queue — with a 33 per cent jobless rate during their first five years in Australia.

Migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are also three times more likely than European or Asian immigrants to be out of work in the first five years of settlement. And their 33 per cent jobless rate is six times higher than the national average.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/careers/migrants-unemployment-rate-among-new-australians-doubles/news-story/8211ef023e576933198a9256248712ed


Lets look at CSO figures for Ireland

The unemployment rate for all recent immigrants was 20 per cent though there were large variations by nationality. Brazilians 30 per cent of those in the labour force were unemployed, while only 4.5 per cent of German national immigrants were in this category.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp11eoi/cp11eoi/lfnmfl/

Brazilians and Germans arent fleeing war zones so you it would be reasonable to expect at least a better spread of skills among people forced to move by war? Right?

CSO stats dont have a Middle Eastern category nor a North African one but it has a 'black African category'

Black Africans recorded the highest unemployment rate (36 per cent), and were four times more likely to be unemployed than White Irish individuals.

https://www.esri.ie/news/ethnicity-and-nationality-in-the-irish-labour-market/

Its not 1800s North American where millions of unskilled workers, farmers and settlers were needed to spread across North America (poor Native Americans). The west only offers very limited chances for the unskilled. We have more than enough at unskilled at home on the dole. These people are going to be able to pay for our pensions. All it does is store up trouble for the future.

If we are to help the money is better spent on these people abroad.

2019 wrote: »

If these people are allowed to work, they will put alot of irish to shame!

Care to explain this with some facts please?

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I bet they will be less of a leech on the system than many of our own Irish living on long term welfare

Again any facts to back your claim up? Or is this just some anti Irish crap?

Chloe Brave Cowboy wrote: »

One of my closest friends is Muslim. I met her last week for lunch and she had to pop into boots. She spoke to the pharmacist and as we were leaving he called out “happy uh holidays” and she turned around and said “happy Christmas!” Back to him.

A lot of immigrants are happy enough to intergrate and I love that. But I agree, our culture shouldn’t be the culture that needs to change to accommodate people coming to this country. If they find Christmas offensive then don’t move to a country who starts preparing for it in September

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

Quarter of British Muslims sympathise with Charlie Hebdo terrorists
Some 27 per cent of British Muslims sympathise with Paris gunmen, while more than one in ten say satirical cartoons "deserve" to be attacked

tretorn wrote: »

Im involved in a local sports club and Muslim women arrived covered head to toe to play racket sports. They arrive to play in mixed tournaments but dont want to play with men, they refuse to shake mens hands and in our culture this is an insult. Why are we facilitating this nonsense, if you dont want to participate in a mixed activity then stay at home, simple as that.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're easily insulted so :rolleyes:

The Danes must also be 'easily insulted' as they now require handshakes as part of their citizenship ceremony. We shouldnt import sexism or medieval nonsensical backward ideologies that do not allow something so simple as a handshake between sexes whether or not they are fleeing a warzone. Especially when we can help them from here

stateofflux

I keep hearing people saying that Balbriggan is in the early stages of immigrant Ghetto-ization

Is this true? Or just more scare mongering?

**note i have never been to Balbriggan and am not judging the place.

Brian?

I hope they open some Syrian restaurants.

Good luck to them.

Brian?

stateofflux wrote: »

I keep hearing people saying that Balbriggan is in the early stages of immigrant Ghetto-ization

Is this true? Or just more scare mongering?

**note i have never been to Balbriggan and am not judging the place.

Complete scare mongering.

I grew up in Tallaght and lived in Balbriggan for most of 00s. I’ll take Balbriggan over 80s and 90s Tallaght any day.

Balbriggan isn’t a multicultural utopia, it has its fair share of social issues. But the social issues are more to do with terrible planning than the relative shade of people’s skin.

Brian?

Robocop Corcoran wrote: »

When we get a rare big storm in Ireland, people are told stay away from the beach areas dont swim in the sea etc, and idiots ignore that advice and go for a swim anyway and have to be rescued,emergency services are putting their lives at risk for idiots.

Kinda similar situation here these people ignore the warnings and put their own lives and the lives of the coast guards at risk by attempting to cross the channel illegally. They dont deserve to be rescued.

Secondly, rescuing these people and ferrying them to land is giving the rest of the refugees/economic migrants an invitation to do the same.

Mediterranean taxi service all over again.

So let them drown? Is that your honest answer?

Hoboo

stateofflux wrote: »

I keep hearing people saying that Balbriggan is in the early stages of immigrant Ghetto-ization

Is this true? Or just more scare mongering?

**note i have never been to Balbriggan and am not judging the place.

Keep hearing from what people from where? I kept hearing North Korea had won the world cup but it was all coming from North Korean media.

I live 4km from balbriggan, nothing to report as far as I can see.

Hoboo

Brian? wrote: »

Complete scare mongering.

I grew up in Tallaght and lived in Balbriggan for most of 00s. I’ll take Balbriggan over 80s and 90s Tallaght any day.

Balbriggan isn’t a multicultural utopia, it has its fair share of social issues. But the social issues are more to do with terrible planning than the relative shade of people’s skin.

The social issues unfortunately are a lot to do with race, namely a number of Nigerian families who were and still are in major gangs. Their kids are little bastards. They've made plenty of headlines this year. But they are a minority. Plenty of good kids too.

Billy86

Omackeral wrote: »

Fair enough and tbh I don't give fiddlers about British politics myself but the qualifier is that the person it's leveled it has to be white. Sub that with any other ethnicity and I wonder would it be as acceptable.

"N*gga please" - context tends to change when the person sending the insult is of the same race or ethnicity as the recipient, us Paddies would be quite aware of that ourselves.

Though it would be a different matter used by non white people.

Graces7

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

That's a lovely romanticised idealistic view

By all means we should give temporary refuge to such genuine cases, but when it's safe to return home, that's where they should go.

We have plenty of our own children who've seen and endured things no child should be exposed to, and who deserve the same chance (even more so) to a better life and opportunities.

Charity begins at home, and while I've no issue with helping those in war-ton countries (bearing in mind we give hundreds of millions of Euro every year in foreign aid), it should be in a sustainable manner, and never at the expense of our own needs (which are many and long standing) at home.

There is nothing romanticesed or idealistic about little ones so damaged by being bombed and attacked and in danger ... about reverting to no toilet control... about losing speech. Your lack of any compassion is sad and unrealistic

This is not about charity but our political contractual and ethical obligation as a member country of Europe.

Have you seen the war films? The wounded children? No child here has that to contend with so away with your narrowmindedness and let us see some compassion please. It is a done deal that they are coming .

You would make ireland into what? irish only? Lucky Ellis Island had more humanitarian ways when faced with many thousands of Irish children.

PuppyMcPupFace

Graces7 wrote: »

There is nothing romanticesed or idealistic about little ones so damaged by being bombed and attacked and in danger ... about reverting to no toilet control... about losing speech. Your lack of any compassion is sad and unrealistic

This is not about charity but our political contractual and ethical obligation as a member country of Europe.

Have you seen the war films? The wounded children? No child here has that to contend with so away with your narrowmindedness and let us see some compassion please. It is a done deal that they are coming .

You would make ireland into what? irish only? Lucky Ellis Island had more humanitarian ways when faced with many thousands of Irish children.

Utter horse****, no rational thought whatsoever and can be summed up by "da poor kiddies".

It's a "done deal" is it? Rubbish.

Jesus you watch one badly edited Trocaire and fall for any old pony.

gw80

Graces7 wrote: »

There is nothing romanticesed or idealistic about little ones so damaged by being bombed and attacked and in danger ... about reverting to no toilet control... about losing speech. Your lack of any compassion is sad and unrealistic

This is not about charity but our political contractual and ethical obligation as a member country of Europe.

Have you seen the war films? The wounded children? No child here has that to contend with so away with your narrowmindedness and let us see some compassion please. It is a done deal that they are coming .

You would make ireland into what? irish only? Lucky Ellis Island had more humanitarian ways when faced with many thousands of Irish children.

How many are you going to take into your home?

PuppyMcPupFace

gw80 wrote: »

How many are you going to take into your home?

Same as Geldof, Lineker and that whinging skank Lily Allen combined I'd say.

gw80

PuppyMcPupFace wrote: »

Same as Geldof, Lineker and that whinging skank Lily Allen combined I'd say.

Of course she will be back to tell us that she lives on an island( for the millionth time) and that it wouldn't be convenient for her to take any in.
How very convenient,
Amazing how preachy and noble people can be, safe in the knowledge they will never have to deal with the fallout of all this.
I see what is happening in the UK and the continent as a result of this unnatural immigration and I worry about the future of my children and their children.
If all I had to worry about was a few cats then maybe I wouldn't be so concerned.

Brian?

gw80 wrote: »

Of course she will be back to tell us that she lives on an island( for the millionth time) and that it wouldn't be convenient for her to take any in.
How very convenient,
Amazing how preachy and noble people can be, safe in the knowledge they will never have to deal with the fallout of all this.
I see what is happening in the UK and the continent as a result of this unnatural immigration and I worry about the future of my children and their children.
If all I had to worry about was a few cats then maybe I wouldn't be so concerned.

Unnatural immigration? I’d love to hear your definition of that.

golondrinas

There's a woman in direct provision for years who is the darling of the media. Recently she featured in a story about her course at a well known cookery school . She is from Malawi-- one of the safest countries in Africa.

suicide_circus

golondrinas wrote: »

There's a woman in direct provision for years who is the darling of the media. Recently she featured in a story about her course at a well known cookery school . She is from Malawi-- one of the safest countries in Africa.

did she arrive during the boom by any chance?

McGiver

Richard Hillman wrote:

The country was in a decent state when Asad did have total control. There weren't many Syrian refugees floating about back then. I was even watching an episode of Top Gear the other day from 2010. Clarkson and Co whizzing around Raqqa, Aleppo, Damascus and Palmyra. Then a year or two later the Islamists tried to take over.

Yes, Syria was a very economically advanced country for the region. And I somewhat agree to the idea that these kind of countries need a dictator, hard hand to keep them from killing each other. But it's impossible to hold an internally unstable country like that for a long time as it has been proven many times. In case of Syria, especially when the ruling family are Alawites, a small minority, who rule a Sunni majority (70%), Shias (12%), Christians (10%). Ethnically, it's even more complex, where the Asad family rules Arabs, Syrian Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Assyrians. None of the groups have any representation under Assad.

Also, describing the Syrian Civil War as "Assad vs Islamists" is a gross misinterpretation of the situation. There are/were multitude parties involved in the conflict - Hard-line Islamists, ISIS, Shia groups, Arab Sunni moderates, Christian groups, Assyrian groups, Turkmen groups, secular groups, Socialist groups, Kurdish groups etc.

McGiver

MontgomeryClift wrote:

Intersting fact: The average IQ in Syria is 83.

Source please. A peer reviewed study if possible. Thank you.

McGiver

Beechwoodspark wrote:

Do a bit of research on the smaller parties. Some of them would scrap the asylum system completely, IF they were voted in and got the reins of power.

Not when RoI is a signatory to Geneva Refugee convention and the member of the EU.

Beechwoodspark

McGiver wrote: »

Not when RoI is a signatory to Geneva Refugee convention and the member of the EU.

Yes. And some of the parties want to withdraw from both. Ppl should have a look at the smaller parties if they are serious about stopping mass immigration into this country.

All the larger parties won’t change anything.

Richard Hillman

golondrinas wrote: »

There's a woman in direct provision for years who is the darling of the media. Recently she featured in a story about her course at a well known cookery school . She is from Malawi-- one of the safest countries in Africa.

I've seen her before, didn't bother reading into how safe Malawi is until you pointed it out.

The First thing that pops up when you ask Google "Is Malawi safe?"


"Lonely planet ranked Malawi the 5th best country to visit in 2014 not just in Africa but in the whole world. ... Malawi is one of the safest places in the world." :pac:

Yer Da sells Avon

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Yet the posters that call others Gammon would probably go ape**** if they were labelled NPCs.

I don't even know what that means.

mvl

McGiver wrote: »

Source please. A peer reviewed study if possible. Thank you.

after he said it, found https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html
(based on 2002-2006 research, not too contemporary)


I'd say what Syria had in 2006 is not far from the IQ of some of the posters here

mvl

McGiver wrote: »

Also, describing the Syrian Civil War as "Assad vs Islamists" is a gross misinterpretation of the situation. There are/were multitude parties involved in the conflict - Hard-line Islamists, ISIS, Shia groups, Arab Sunni moderates, Christian groups, Assyrian groups, Turkmen groups, secular groups, Socialist groups, Kurdish groups etc.

do we know what is an average profile of the ppl who fled the country ?

A poll published in November 2014 by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that 13% of Syrian refugees have positive feelings towards the Islamic State terrorist group. The data should raise questions about the risks posed by the acceptance of Syrian refugees into the United States.

https://clarionproject.org/13-percent-syrian-refugees-support-isis-poll/

Counter-terror expert David Harris warned the US Senate about the dangers associated with Canada accepting so many Syrian refugees and the implications that it has for the United States.

David Harris, a counter-terror expert who serves as the head of the international intelligence program INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc., recently addressed the US Senate in order to discuss the dangers associated with the fact that the Canadian government has decided to fast-trek the arrival of 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada and its implications for the United States: “Complications led the government to adjust intake goals to 10,000 before the end of 2015 and another 15,000 prior to 1 March, 2016. By last week, about 15,000 had entered Canada. Reports indicate that Canada might raise its target level and take in 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. Given the threat picture in Syria and the scale of the intake, security considerations require thoughtful attention.”

According to Harris, FBI director James Corney highlighted screening difficulties if America would absorb 10,000 Syrians, warning that information gaps could lead to inadequate screening: “If the extensive US intelligence system would have trouble screening 10,000 Syrians in a year, how likely is it that Canada even with valuable US assistance could adequately screen two and a half times that number in four months?”

Harris emphasized that it is important to remember the risk associated with these refugees: “Apart from accounts of a suspected ISIS aim of penetrating international refugee streams, a Lebanese cabinet minister warned in September 2015 that at least two percent of the 1.1 million Syrians in Lebanon’s refugee camps were connected to ISIS extremism. Canada takes refugees from Lebanon’s UNHRC camps. More generally, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies polls determined that 13% of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey had positive views of ISIS. How many more might favor Al Qaeda, the Al Nusra Front, Hezbollah, Assad’s militias and other non-ISIS threats?”

https://www.jerusalemonline.com/counter-terror-expert-warned-us-senate-13-of-syrian-refugees-support-isis-19115/

According to a poll by the Arab Opinion Project, under the Doha-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, found that 13 percent of Syrian refugees hold a positive view ISIS — including 4 percent that had a very favorable opinion.

More than 1-in-8 refugees have positive views about ISIS; 1-in-25 have very favorable views.

That may not seem like a lot, but considering there are 4.28 million Syrian refugees registered by the United Nations Refugee Agency, the numbers add up quickly.

Using the percentage from that survey to the overall population of Syrian refugees would mean that more than 557,000 have a positive view of ISIS — including more than 170,000 with a very positive opinion.

Those are startling and frightening numbers, considering how few terrorists it took to pull off the attacks in New York City, London, Madrid, and Paris.

At least one of the terrorists involved in the Paris attack had a Syrian refugee passport on him at the time of the attack.

The Greek government confirmed he registered as a refugee in October.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/11/16/poll-550000-syrian-refugees-support-isis/

so eh with Assads side winning it`ll be the ISIS lads looking for asylum
Go Ireland!

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

https://clarionproject.org/13-percent-syrian-refugees-support-isis-poll/



https://www.jerusalemonline.com/counter-terror-expert-warned-us-senate-13-of-syrian-refugees-support-isis-19115/

so eh with Assads side winning it`ll be the ISIS lads looking for asylum
Go Ireland!

I would have thought it is more likely it will be the Kurds looking for protection due to the new US withdrawal policy.

PuppyMcPupFace

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I would have thought it is more likely it will be the Kurds looking for protection due to the new US withdrawal policy.

I'd have no problem supporting refuge for the Kurds - had the balls to face off ISIS rather than abandoning their wives and kids in camps and fleeing to Europe. Brave lads.

end of the road

gw80 wrote: »

How many are you going to take into your home?

how many irish are you taking into your home.

gw80 wrote: »

Of course she will be back to tell us that she lives on an island( for the millionth time) and that it wouldn't be convenient for her to take any in.
How very convenient,
Amazing how preachy and noble people can be, safe in the knowledge they will never have to deal with the fallout of all this.
I see what is happening in the UK and the continent as a result of this unnatural immigration and I worry about the future of my children and their children.
If all I had to worry about was a few cats then maybe I wouldn't be so concerned.

so no different to yourself who will no doubt make excuses for not taking in irish people to your home?

end of the road

Robocop Corcoran wrote: »

When we get a rare big storm in Ireland, people are told stay away from the beach areas dont swim in the sea etc, and idiots ignore that advice and go for a swim anyway and have to be rescued,emergency services are putting their lives at risk for idiots.


Kinda similar situation here these people ignore the warnings and put their own lives and the lives of the coast guards at risk by attempting to cross the channel illegally. They dont deserve to be rescued.

Secondly, rescuing these people and ferrying them to land is giving the rest of the refugees/economic migrants an invitation to do the same.

Mediterranean taxi service all over again.

it's not a similar situation. in 1 case people are going to the beach in a storm and have been warned. in another, desperate people are trying to get to somewhere they have heard is definitely a safe place, via a crossing they probably know little about in reality. a country where they probably have relatives already. also, there is nothing to say that if they weren't rescued others wouldn't still try to cross the channel. when people are in a desperate situation they will try whatever to get out of it, it's human nature.

PuppyMcPupFace wrote: »

Utter horse****, no rational thought whatsoever and can be summed up by "da poor kiddies".

It's a "done deal" is it? Rubbish.

Jesus you watch one badly edited Trocaire and fall for any old pony.

apparently it is indeed a done deal, they are coming. you don't need to watch supposibly "badly edited Trocaire" to gain knowledge of the facts of the syrian war.

PuppyMcPupFace wrote: »

I'd have no problem supporting refuge for the Kurds - had the balls to face off ISIS rather than abandoning their wives and kids in camps and fleeing to Europe. Brave lads.

so people should have stayed to no doubt be slaughtered rather then getting out and letting those with training and the ability do the fighting? that's hardly the best of ideas tbh.
how many abandoned their wives and children in camps and then fled to europe, given plenty of women and children have been coming. how do you know that perhapse wives haven't been telling the men to leave and find them somewhere safer before they would follow on. given we weren't and aren't there, nobody will know for sure.

PuppyMcPupFace

end of the road wrote: »

how many irish are you taking into your home.



so no different to yourself who will no doubt make excuses for not taking in irish people to your home?

Like everything you post that makes zero sense.

Odhinn

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Yes. And some of the parties want to withdraw from both. Ppl should have a look at the smaller parties if they are serious about stopping mass immigration into this country.

All the larger parties won’t change anything.

Which ones?

gw80

end of the road wrote: »

how many irish are you taking into your home.



so no different to yourself who will no doubt make excuses for not taking in irish people to your home?

I cook meals for the homeless here in Waterford twice a month mostly of my own pocket. What do you contribute?

end of the road

Odhinn wrote: »

Which ones?

probably the likes of that united people party.

gw80 wrote: »

I cook meals for the homeless here in Waterford twice a month mostly of my own pocket. What do you contribute?

that's good to hear but it's not the same as taking people into your home i'd have thought. you ask others how many refugees they will be taking into their home, so it's reasonable to ask people who ask that question how many irish they will be taking in to their home, for balance.

Captain Obvious

end of the road wrote: »

probably the likes of that united people party.



that's good to hear but it's not the same as taking people into your home i'd have thought. you ask others how many refugees they will be taking into their home, so it's reasonable to ask people who ask that question how many irish they will be taking in to their home, for balance.

Not really. It should just be called out for the idiotic question it is.

Lefty Bicek

end of the road wrote: »

that's good to hear but it's not the same as taking people into your home i'd have thought. you ask others how many refugees they will be taking into their home, so it's reasonable to ask people who ask that question how many irish they will be taking in to their home, for balance.

You haven't scrap of sense.

gw80

end of the road wrote: »

probably the likes of that united people party.



that's good to hear but it's not the same as taking people into your home i'd have thought. you ask others how many refugees they will be taking into their home, so it's reasonable to ask people who ask that question how many irish they will be taking in to their home, for balance.

But I'm not advocating bringing in unsustainable numbers of foreign migrants, especially on top of already struggling natives, and I certainly wouldn't have the gaul to do so if I was living well fenced off from the negative effects of it.

end of the road

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not really. It should just be called out for the idiotic question it is.

that's what i'm doing, except in a very indirect way so as to give them more rope.

gw80 wrote: »

But I'm not advocating bringing in unsustainable numbers of foreign migrants, especially on top of already struggling natives, and I certainly wouldn't have the gaul to do so if I was living well fenced off from the negative effects of it.

neither is anyone else. at least not on this thread anyway. most people seem to be clear that we should only take in an amount we can sustainibly deal with.