Farage highlighting illegal migration chaos

Donald Trump

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think you underestimate facial recognition systems that many airports use these days, somebody presenting at an immigration desk is pretty easy to trace their route back all the way to them entering the terminal.

And as I said its why we need to add another location. Australia uses an island to house waiting asylum seekers, we could partner with a nation in which the welfare of a human being maybe isnt as legislated for and deport them there so we no longer have to pay for house and feed them.

And before anyone starts im not talking about dropping these people in a desert and starving them to death, just some country with no social welfare.

I can guarantee that whatever "system" you can come up with there off the top of your head, the chancers have already anticipated it and figured out a way around it.

Eric Cartman

Donald Trump wrote: »

I can guarantee that whatever "system" you can come up with there off the top of your head, the chancers have already anticipated it and figured out a way around it.

Makes it even more imperative that we provide them absolutely nothing and no route to legitimacy in the country, if they're willing to break the rules to get in, they most certainly won't follow the laws while here.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

I can guarantee that whatever "system" you can come up with there off the top of your head, the chancers have already anticipated it and figured out a way around it.

Any system is open to be abused, that doesn't mean that we give up entirely trying to manage the problems involved.

We've had decades of "nice" approaches to dealing with immigration. There are many ways in which we could tighten the process, if there was the political will to do so.

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any system is open to be abused, that doesn't mean that we give up entirely trying to manage the problems involved.

We've had decades of "nice" approaches to dealing with immigration. There are many ways in which we could tighten the process, if there was the political will to do so.

But there isn’t. And there’s no will to among them Irish public either. You’ll notice that most anti-immigrant parties do laughably poorly at election time.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

But there isn’t. And there’s no will to among them Irish public either. You’ll notice that most anti-immigrant parties do laughably poorly at election time.

It's a relatively new issue for Irish people to contend with, and due to the relative success in the economy (and EU membership), there hasn't been the need to be too concerned with the spending involved. That's going to change.

Ireland has never really had a nationalist party the way other countries do, nor any serious commitment to any right ideology. As such, there's no basis for an anti-immigration party. Not yet.

But they will grow, change, and become better able to attract support over time. And Irish people will care more as they see their country changing around them, the evolution of crime, the social issues, the rises in tax to pay for supplements, the demands of minority groups for greater recognition and rights. All of these things will feed into making Irish people more aware, and to feel the need for greater controls.

It's worth remembering that the main media in Ireland has been overwhelmingly supportive of the pro-immigration cause, in addition to the majority of politicians, so, there hasn't been much focus on the negatives of immigration. That too will change.

Lastly, the terminology is important too. You used the phrase anti-immigration to set the tone.. which is fine.. but you can be pro-EU immigration, while being anti-immigration from 3rd world nations. Seeking migrants that won't end up at the bottom of our society, as opposed to creating a new underclass that needs government supports to live. The use of such terminology seeks to set the tone, suggesting something unreasonable.. once society starts questioning the migration issue, we'll see more moderate parties capable of dealing with the real issues, rather than accepting being labelled, and put into an extreme category.. and therefore limiting any support they might receive.

FGR

KiKi III wrote: »

You’ll notice that most anti-immigrant parties do laughably poorly at election time.

To be fair it's not normally the immigration stance that makes those parties fail - more often than not it's the more extreme stance they take against the EU and other policies that the majority of the electorate have no interest in.

If one of the mainstream parties were to take a hard line against fraudulent claims with faster processing/immediate deportation and support of legitimate asylum seekers and refugees - I believe the silent majority of the electorate would support it.

Arthur Daley

FGR wrote: »

To be fair it's not normally the immigration stance that makes those parties fail - more often than not it's the more extreme stance they take against the EU and other policies that the majority of the electorate have no interest in.

If one of the mainstream parties were to take a hard line against fraudulent claims with faster processing/immediate deportation and support of legitimate asylum seekers and refugees - I believe the silent majority of the electorate would support it.

Absolutely. The Irish Freedom Party is the most like the old PDs/old Fine Gael. And is quite top heavy with credible academics

But the issue is that as we have seen with the reversal of the 2004 referendum vote, things in the 'body politic' i.e. Leinster House have gotten so out of hand now that it actually needs the EU to step in and act responsibly.

ArmaniJeanss

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Absolutely. The Irish Freedom Party is the most like the old PDs/old Fine Gael. And is quite top heavy with credible academics

Herman Kelly, Ben Gilroy, Dolores Cahill would be the names I'd associate with them. Not quite seeing a huge amount of academic credibility there (Cahill has some admittedly).
But just looks like an Anti-EU, pro-life, pro-family (usually code for Catholic ethos) party, in the mould of 5 or 6 others on the go.

Arthur Daley

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Herman Kelly, Ben Gilroy, Dolores Cahill would be the names I'd associate with them. Not quite seeing a huge amount of academic credibility there (Cahill has some admittedly).
But just looks like an Anti-EU, pro-life, pro-family (usually code for Catholic ethos) party, in the mould of 5 or 6 others on the go.

Also involved to some degree were Anthony Coughlan, Prof Ray Kinsella, Cormac Lucey and the ex Ambassador to Canada Ray Bassett. And Farage himself came over for the party launch.

So, in any other country this party wouldn't be ostracised as it is here by RTE and Co. This is mainstream politics in European countries, as we have seen in the UK, France and Italy. Although as I said the big issue is that ironically being in the EU might possibly save Ireland from the looney left that have commandeered the Parliament.

Wibbs

KiKi III wrote: »

But there isn’t. And there’s no will to among them Irish public either. You’ll notice that most anti-immigrant parties do laughably poorly at election time.

Because as others have pointed out the same parties are anti abortion, LGBT and the like. Throwbacks to "catholic" Ireland and nobody wants that.

The one time the immigration topic was actually put to the Irish electorate back in 2004 to close the birthright citizenship loophole that was one of the largest drivers of the non EU migrant boom in the celtic tiger years the same Irish people returned the largest majority in any referendum in a generation and said Nope, don't want that. If that wasn't a clear signal of the feeling among a lot of Irish people that they are concerned even anti such migration I don't know what is.

Of course such legislation won't be put to the Irish electorate again, because I'd bet the house the result would be similar, if not hardened. Not unless a non fringe party or government that wants to get tough on migration does so and currently there is no alternative save for the aforementioned nutter parties.

Kivaro

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course such legislation won't be put to the Irish electorate again, because I'd bet the house the result would be similar, if not hardened. Not unless a non fringe party or government that wants to get tough on migration does so and currently there is no alternative save for the aforementioned nutter parties.

Here's my take on this.
I can never envision a real political party (i.e. without ulterior motives) forming from the indigenous population to tackle this ever growing problem of de facto open borders. I fully expect though that a non-Irish born person living and working in Ireland will look at the current status quo with bewilderment and actually do something about it. Could be Polish, or Lithuanian, or even further afield.
Whenever it happens, this person will garner a substantial if not majority share of the electorate, and then you will the weak-backboned parties clambering onboard after all the hard work is done.

Arthur Daley

Wibbs wrote: »

Because as others have pointed out the same parties are anti abortion, LGBT and the like. Throwbacks to "catholic" Ireland and nobody wants that.

I would think that is debatable.

The establishment has decided that these parties will be 'starved of the oxygen of publicity' in as much as they can get away with. Because they almost seem to be one or two rungs on the ladder up from terrorist groups to many vested interests via for example RTE, the Irish papers and social media.
But it is a slight jump to then consider that Christian Democratic/Conservative stances have lost all support in Ireland.

This seems to be a similar dynamic to what we saw in 2016 in the UK and USA.

ArmaniJeanss

It's chicken and egg though - they have a miniscule vote so why should be entitled to get a voice on RTE?

I do understand the rejoinder is that it's not easy for them to get votes if they don't get this publicity.

But it's up to them to actually get their vote/representation up to a level which makes it harder to ignore them.

I've said before that the way to do this is not to stand for General elections or the European Parliament and demand this voice (and you look a bit silly when you get 1% of the vote) and claim you are being ignored.

The proper way is to put in a lot of unpaid hard work at local level for a few years, get plenty of councillors elected at the next local elections, spread the word through the constituency, organise vote and transfer pacts with other fringe candidates. Then stand in General Elections - you'll probably still lose the first time but if its from a position of 7% of the vote and 20 councillors then you can't be ignored the next time (even legally you would be entitled to a lot of airtime).
But it seems none of these parties actually want to go down this very bloody tough route. They want to create a party and immediately get parity of publicity with everyone. Otherwise they are being 'starved' of their rights.

Arthur Daley

Probably though the issue is that these are national and international issues. Local elections are about potholes, planning permission and having speed humps installed. And of course, there is the question of funding multiple campaigns, so they concentrate efforts on national and European elections. UKIPs big breakthrough came in the European elections after all.

jimmycrackcorm

Wibbs wrote: »

The one time the immigration topic was actually put to the Irish electorate back in 2004 to close the birthright citizenship loophole that was one of the largest drivers of the non EU migrant boom in the celtic tiger years the same Irish people returned the largest majority in any referendum in a generation and said Nope, don't want that. If that wasn't a clear signal of the feeling among a lot of Irish people that they are concerned even anti such migration I don't know what is.

I remember it well. I don't think it was an anti-immigration issue, more that we didn't want Irishness to be defined as effectively having tourists pop over to have a kid that makes them Irish.

Wibbs

There was a fair sideorder of "anchor babies" allowing parents to stay on and get residency too.

Hamachi

Kivaro wrote: »

I fully expect though that a non-Irish born person living and working in Ireland will look at the current status quo with bewilderment and actually do something about it. Could be Polish, or Lithuanian, or even further afield.

This is a distinct possibility. In my personal experience living abroad, those with the most forthright views on immigration and openly critical of lax border control, tended to be from migration backgrounds themselves.

biko

An Iranian asylum seeker who twice tried to ferry a total of 36 fellow migrants across the Channel in overloaded dinghies - the UK's biggest people smuggling bid using rubber boats - has been jailed for two years.

The 30-year-old steered the inflatable boats from France to the UK coast - first with 27 people, then after that bid failed, with another 11 passengers.

He will likely face deportation when his prison spell is over.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/iran-refugee-jailed-deportation-dinghies-english-channel-b1790996.html