FAS proposes Green-card-type system for non-EU workers

Frank Grimes

Poker_Peter wrote:

The fewer that get in, the fewer bad eggs get in.

You don't see anything bigoted/rascist/xenophobic about what you're saying?
If the IRA started back bombing and the UK decided to deny all Irish people entry there just in case, would you think that's acceptable?

Poker_Peter

Frank Grimes wrote:

You don't see anything bigoted/rascist/xenophobic about what you're saying?
If the IRA started back bombing and the UK decided to deny all Irish people entry there just in case, would you think that's acceptable?

I didn't say nor am I saying we should refuse to let ANYONE come in. I am saying we should let fewer in.

Frank Grimes

Poker_Peter wrote:

I am saying we should let fewer in.

How would you determine who should or should not get in then?

Poker_Peter

Poker_Peter wrote:

I didn't say nor am I saying we should refuse to let ANYONE come in. I am saying we should let fewer in.

But you did mention bad eggs...
Honestly you are so in agreement with Arcadegame from what I've read so far, I haven't decided yet whether its just disturbing or remarkable or both

For what it's worth,I've been involved with bringing in loads of workers from the new E.U states to here and theres jobs for many many more.
We've brought in as many non E.U workers and I havent seen a bad egg yet, just honest to goodness hard working people helping themselves as well as our economy.

mycroft

Poker_Peter wrote:

BTW, I have no reason to disbelief what the Indo said. If you have then I look forward to hearing what it is.

Fine.

The article was written in March of 2003.

During this period of time a vast quanity of printspace was taken up with intelligence reports justifying the case for the forthcoming war, and the the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Lurid reports of WMD being able to launch within 45 minutes, capabilities of Al Qaeda, and the dangers possed to us by both groups.

The majority of this intelligence has been debunked. As a paper with a staunchly pro war stance, the Independent included stories like the afformentioned and the article you site.

In the aftermath of the Iraq war, and the failure to find links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, inquries have been launched into the pre war intelligence, which depending on whom you read was either botched, exaggerated or unreliable.

In the light of these facts many papers such as the NY times and Washington post gave their readers an apology over how they were mislead and in turn mislead their readers.

A former colleague of mine in March 2003 debated Brendan O'Connor Sindo
columnists on newstalk, O'Connor stated that "We knew" that "Sadam was training Al Qaeda in chemical weapons" and "Al Qaeda were active in Nth Iraq" the latter being a statement displaying the columnists profound ignorance of the politics on the ground in Iraq before the war, and the williness of a major columnists in the Irish Independent group to fabricate stories to justify the forthcoming war.

In the light of the fact that vast quanties of the intelligence reported as fact in the Independent in March has been disproven, rejected, or debunked, this article can be taken as having little or no credibility; it does not include any substantial or specific claims, and instead offers the same inneudo and implied threat that padded most of the stories about Al Qaeda and Saddam's links.

Furthermore a moderately detailed search on the web to find further supporting articles to support your allegation fails to come up with anything remotely approaching any other credible sources for your claims, they can be dismissed easily.

Poker_Peter

I refute your claims that the Indo was pro-war. Journalists writing for it often give differing views on various issues, e.g. Conor Cruise O'Brien provides a pro-Unionist outlook, unlike Sam Smyth.

The report referred to "Garda sources" so it is not just in the realm of opinion. And it is the job of the Gardai to know about these things.

bonkey

Poker_Peter wrote:

I pointed out that the scale of Islamic terrorist attacks exceeds anything the IRA/UDA/ETA ever did, and hence a more restrictive approach is needed for immigrants from hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism.

Firstly, you are conveniently switching your focus from acts in this country to acts performed anywhere if you go back and look at what the original questions being asked were.

Secondly, you have in no way shown why your conclusion follows from your conclusion. It is as strong a piece of logic as saying "hence we should close our borders, declare Islam illegal, and execute all Muslims in the country who refuse to leave" is a reasonable solution because of the existence of Islamic Extremist terrorism.

In short, you have in no way shown why your "solution" is in any way a reasonable reaction to the problem. You have simply shown where it has come from. No-one is questioning the existence of Islamic extremists carrying out terrorism on what appears to be an international scale. What people are questioning is the appropriateness of the actions you are suggesting are necessary. If all you are going to present is an explanation as to the cause, rather than an analysis of why this particular solution is an appropriate one, then you should note that the same logic should - by your standards - stand as a convincing argument for my extreme "round em up and shoot em" so-called-solution.

Now, given that I don't think you'd agree that you're making a convincing argument for such atrocities, I must conclude that you must also agree that your logic cannot be convincing to explain the appropriateness of any solution.

Furthermore, if your concern is terrorism, I would suggest there is most probably a higher percentage of both Catholics and Protestants in this country who have engaged in terrorism than Muslims. Certainly it is so if one only considers acts of terrorism known to have been carried out in part or in whole within the borders of our nation. So one would have to question why, for example, you don't suggest closing the border to Northern Ireland as an appropriate reaction to terrorism as well.

If your concern is terrorism, then I would suggest that you should either restate or reconsider your reasoning for why your solution should be implemented, because as I think I've just shown, you're not making much of a case at the moment. The alternative would seem to be an implicit admission that your concern is not terrorism, and that its just a convenient front to fight a seperate issue on.

jc

Zombrex

Poker_Peter wrote:

I didn't say nor am I saying we should refuse to let ANYONE come in. I am saying we should let fewer in.

You seem to be saying something like 1 out of every 1000 muslims is a terrorist, there for the fewer we let in the fewer terrorists we will have.

I dont think it quite works like that :rolleyes:

Poker_Peter

Furthermore, if your concern is terrorism, I would suggest there is most probably a higher percentage of both Catholics and Protestants in this country who have engaged in terrorism than Muslims. Certainly it is so if one only considers acts of terrorism known to have been carried out in part or in whole within the borders of our nation. So one would have to question why, for example, you don't suggest closing the border to Northern Ireland as an appropriate reaction to terrorism as well.

OK. But the scale in terms of the numbers of victims of AQ individual attacks is far worse than anything Irish terror groups have ever conducted, I'm sure you agree? Does this not justify a tougher approach with respect to allowing people to come into our state for would-be immigrants from theocratic Islamic countries, than pertains for NI (and I know none pertain to NI)?

If your concern is terrorism, then I would suggest that you should either restate or reconsider your reasoning for why your solution should be implemented, because as I think I've just shown, you're not making much of a case at the moment. The alternative would seem to be an implicit admission that your concern is not terrorism, and that its just a convenient front to fight a seperate issue on.

If you have watched "The Power of Nightmares" on BBC2 recently, you would understand why AQ is so much an out pf this world terror threat compared to the IRA/Loyalist groups. Scale IS important when assessing questions of tighter immigration control, because they have declared war on Christian countries. In Algeria, the branch of AQ there declared that all Algerians must be killed except themselves. Then they started to kill each other. OBL and Ayman Al-Zawahiri were mentioned on the program as having expressed the view that we in the West are "corrupted" as are those Muslims who do not support AQ, and are therefore deserving of being murdered.

Now Bonkey, granted a lot of Muslims have no truck with these loonies, but don't you think it is taking political-correctness too far to deny that Islamic terrorists mostly come from Islamic countries? Much of the Muslim world - and it may not be what lefties want to hear but it is true - continues customs that are repugnant to Western ideals of freedom, e.g. Honor killings, women not allowed to drive cars (Iran), Sharia law in which a woman tried for adultery and how claims she was raped is automatically disbelieved unless she can find 3 men to back up what she is saying (Saudi Arabia), Converts from Islam to other religions face the death penalty (Saudi Arabia), women forced under the veil (nearly every Muslim country).

These ideals are an affront to Western values of sexual equality and human liberty. We don't want these ideas imported into Ireland.

A poll in Pakistan found:
http://www.yespakistan.com/afghancrisis/gallup_survey.asp

82% of them believe Osama Bin Laden is a "Mjuahid" and not a terrorist....83% side with Taliban against America.

Considering that Mullah Mohammad Omar openly described OBL as a "guest" and refused to hand him over to the Americans, in spite of him having done the rather serious thing (!) of flying a passenger plane into the tallest building in the US, butchering 2900+ people, the Pakistani point of view in the polls is really telling of the sickness pervading parts of the Muslim world, in terms of this support for killing innocent people.

Frank Grimes

Poker_Peter wrote:

If you have watched "The Power of Nightmares" on BBC2 recently, you would understand why AQ is so much an out pf this world terror threat

You really should watch the programme again, it did not say that at all.
Also, women are allow drive cars in Iran, most Muslim countries do not force women to wear veils, "honour killings" are not an Islamic practice.
If you want to stereotype all Muslims, at least get your "facts" right.
Remember, just because the Saudi government do something or enforce some law, it does not automatically mean it is Islamic.
They are not representative of the entire world Muslim community.

Considering that Mullah Mohammad Omar openly described OBL as a "guest" and refused to hand him over to the Americans, in spite of him having done the rather serious thing (!) of flying a passenger plane into the tallest building in the US, butchering 2900+ people, the Pakistani point of view in the polls is really telling of the sickness pervading parts of the Muslim world, in terms of this support for killing innocent people.

So because a majority of Pakistanis surveyed for a poll "...say that in the conflict between America and Taliban, their sympathies are with the Taliban", it means that they and a majority Muslims everywhere support killing innocent people?
Do you even care why these people might think like this (i.e. the support for the Taliban), or is it just easier to label them as backward terrorists?
All you seem to be doing is starting with a conclusion and (badly) working your way back to reach it.

And with regards to this:

We don't want these ideas imported into Ireland.

Please do not tell me what I do or do not want imported into this country, I don't need or want people like you speaking on my behalf.

mycroft

Poker_Peter wrote:

I refute your claims that the Indo was pro-war. Journalists writing for it often give differing views on various issues, e.g. Conor Cruise O'Brien provides a pro-Unionist outlook, unlike Sam Smyth.

The report referred to "Garda sources" so it is not just in the realm of opinion. And it is the job of the Gardai to know about these things.

Then care to find ANY another article to support your claim. There's dubious evidence for example these "garda sources" could have been based on what has been later proven as unrelible sources. The only proof you have is an an article based on intelligence from a period of time where so much of the intelligence has been discredited.


Filmsy isn't the word for your continued usage of this article to support this allegation of yours.

Zombrex

Poker_Peter wrote:

If you have watched "The Power of Nightmares" on BBC2 recently, you would understand why AQ is so much an out pf this world terror threat compared to the IRA/Loyalist groups.

Actually the point the program was making was the AQ was a terrorist group imploding in on itself, about to run out of steam when they got very lucky with 9-11 and, have enjoyed a boost since Bush declared war on the muslim world.

But the program was also making the point that a lot of the power that drives AQ is not its physical presents but the "idea" of the potential threat is posses (the power of the nightmare) and how that idea is not really based on actual assessments in physical power.

Your post that we should limit muslims coming into the country is, ironically, an example of the kind of things the program was warning against, clamp downs on civil libertes and discrimination againt muslims in an effort to protect us the the "nightmare threat" that is not necessarly a reflection of the reality.

pete

Poker_Peter wrote:

AQ is so much an out pf this world terror threat compared to the IRA/Loyalist groups. Scale IS important when assessing questions of tighter immigration control,

As was pointed out to good ole AG2K4 way back in post 157, it seems it's more a matter of efficiency than scale.

Them scary nordies got through about 3,000 too - granted, they didn't manage it all in one day, but they're a persistent lot up there... bottom line = two comparable sets of several thousand corpses.

So why don't we keep the chuckies and the pope-kickers out too?

Dhimmi76

pete wrote:

As was pointed out to good ole AG2K4 way back in post 157, it seems it's more a matter of efficiency than scale.

Them scary nordies got through about 3,000 too - granted, they didn't manage it all in one day, but they're a persistent lot up there... bottom line = two comparable sets of several thousand corpses.

So why don't we keep the chuckies and the pope-kickers out too?

in a democracy you can't boot people out of their own country but you may exclude those foreigners whom you regard as undesirables- it's called sovereignty you confused wee boy!! :rolleyes:
even if you were to regard Northern Irish as foreigners it is illogical to argue the importation (unnecessarily) of more nutters.



On a more general point, it is truly amazing how blind the ‘open borderists’ or “mass immigration enthusiasts” are in refusing to entertain the merit of any sensible controls on immigration, no matter how reasonable.

It is indeed truly a cultist mentality. All opponents are bad -only ‘we’ can be right combined with an obstinate refusal to acknowledge any merit in those who oppose them.

This would be unfortunate enough if it was just a sad bunch of fringe mutters, which exist in every society. But here it seems they are backed by (and inadvertently are backing) egoistic business and infester interests and to a large degree by State policy (19 Euros per week and all that Pravda and RTE blatant policy of ‘normalising’ multiculturalism and their obvious stifling of any balanced public debate on the whole subject) and by privately-owned mass media (including ‘even-handed’ treatment of views here on boards.ie)’.

Truth always outs in the end but before this I fear our society will have to endure much more of the same before we can reach that point- so unnecessary- so sad!!!

Frank Grimes

Dhimmi76 wrote:

On a more general point, it is truly amazing how blind the ‘open borderists’ or “mass immigration enthusiasts” are in refusing to entertain the merit of any sensible controls on immigration, no matter how reasonable.

It's been said over and over again that no one here is suggesting an open boarder policy.
There are also very little "merits" from the controls the likes of you, Poker_Peter, AG2004 etc. are suggesting here, they only appear to be paranoid, xenophobic rantings about some "threat" we all face that apparently none of you feel the need to even prove exists, let alone to suggest any rational ways of dealing with it.

Poker_Peter

Frank Grimes wrote:

It's been said over and over again that no one here is suggesting an open boarder policy.
There are also very little "merits" from the controls the likes of you, Poker_Peter, AG2004 etc. are suggesting here, they only appear to be paranoid, xenophobic rantings about some "threat" we all face that apparently none of you feel the need to even prove exists, let alone to suggest any rational ways of dealing with it.

So you are saying you are not an open-borders person.

Right, so what immigration-controls (if any) do you favour?

Frank Grimes

Poker_Peter wrote:

So you are saying you are not an open-borders person.

Right, so what immigration-controls (if any) do you favour?

It's been discussed to death, you are selectively ignoring posts that don't suit your opinions on the subject.
I don't really see the point in discussing this with someone who's just going to ignore what I say.

Poker_Peter

Frank Grimes wrote:

It's been discussed to death, you are selectively ignoring posts that don't suit your opinions on the subject.
I don't really see the point in discussing this with someone who's just going to ignore what I say.

I am listening with great interest! Prove me wrong!

mycroft

Poker_Peter wrote:

I am listening with great interest! Prove me wrong!

Still waiting for more evidence about the insidious Al Qaeda cells at work here PP.....

pete

I think i'll just pick up on a couple of "points":

dimmy wrote:

in a democracy you can't boot people out of their own country but you may exclude those foreigners whom you regard as undesirables

Who said anything about what country they were from? To clarify - you're basically saying that you're perfectly happy to welcome terrorists here, as long as they're "irish"? But you want separate rules to keep out the "foreign" ones? Could you elaborate on this a bit?

dimmy wrote:

blatant policy of ‘normalising’ multiculturalism

Are you suggesting that multiculturalism is in some way abnormal?

pete

Poker_Peter wrote:

Right, so what immigration-controls (if any) do you favour?

Could you clarify: Are you talking immigration or are you talking asylum?

Some people around here have a problem differentiating the two.

Poker_Peter

pete wrote:

Could you clarify: Are you talking immigration or are you talking asylum?

Some people around here have a problem differentiating the two.

All asylum-seekers are immigrants. Therefore they are intimately linked. :rolleyes:

pete

Poker_Peter wrote:

All asylum-seekers are immigrants.

Wrong.


An immigrant, by definition, is one who has chosen to move permanently.

Compare and contrast with:

Asylum seeker
An asylum seeker is a person who seeks to be recognised as a refugee under the terms of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as defined in Section 2 of the Refugee Act, 1996, as amended.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/seeking_asylum/refugees_asylum_seekers_introduction.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA17Y1996S2.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA17Y1996S21.html


Is this where i get to use that look at me i'm oh-so-clever rolleyes smiley?

Poker_Peter

Wrong.


An immigrant, by definition, is one who has chosen to move permanently.

No an immigrant is someone who migrates into a country. What do you define as permanent? Are you saying that of the tens of thousands of foreigners in Ireland, none are immigrants? Oh please! Talk about hair-splitting!

All asylum-seekers in Ireland migrated into Ireland from another country(ies). Therefore they are immigrants.

If we can't even agree on that, then I don't know what hope there is for the world :rolleyes:

pete

Poker_Peter wrote:

No an immigrant is someone who migrates into a country. What do you define as permanent? Are you saying that of the tens of thousands of foreigners in Ireland, none are immigrants? Oh please! Talk about hair-splitting!

No, actually i'd rather talk about basing arguments on facts and accurate definitions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immigrant

Poker_Peter

pete wrote:

No, actually i'd rather talk about basing arguments on facts and accurate definitions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=immigrant

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/immigrant

immigrant
a person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there

pete

Poker_Peter wrote:

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/immigrant

So... you agree with me?

Poker_Peter

pete wrote:

So... you agree with me?

I don't accept the use of the word "permanent" as a credible legal definition of an immigrant. Otherwise you could argue that no-one is an immigrant until they are dead, which is kind of crazy :rolleyes:

pete

Poker_Peter wrote:

I don't accept the use of the word "permanent" as a credible legal definition of an immigrant. Otherwise you could argue that no-one is an immigrant until they are dead, which is kind of crazy :rolleyes:

Well I guess it's just too bad that the world's lexicographers don't agree with you.

Memnoch

Poker_Peter wrote:

All asylum-seekers are immigrants. Therefore they are intimately linked. :rolleyes:

but all immigrants ARE NOT asylum seekers, therefore to take an attribute (weather real or imagined) about asylum seekers and apply it to immigrants is purposefully misleading, and only serves to weaken the arguement.