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

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

With Labour's policy of giving total amnesty to ALL asylum-seekers

I've read what's probably their policy on this (on their site) and I can't quite see what you're saying unless I insert a few paragraphs of my own interpretation and imagination into the actual policy. Knock us out a suitable link to the actual policy that doesn't require a vivid imagination willya? I'm not necessarily saying that this isn't what they're saying, it's just that I don't trust your word on almost anything I haven't actually read[1] so rather than have a discusion based on your assumption (which may even be correct), link (to the policy), scan (the policy) or verifiable quotes (from the policy) please in the interests of sanity.

I'm assuming you'll address my point in the post up the page above in the fullness of time, despite having ignored my last request for meta-information about a week back.

[1]Being firmly non-sarcastic, I'm just trying to be fair by telling you. You probably already guessed anyway

arcadegame2004

I will post the link when I find it but to the best of my recollection I read something in a newspaper around the time of the 2002 election where it mentioned them wanting a form of amnesty.

Dhimmi76

arcadegame2004 wrote:

A: Competition for jobs with Irish people on the basis of undercutting Irish wage-rates.

B: United Ireland could be blocked by foreign votes in referendum.

C: Risk of Islamist policies being introduced in Ireland if liberal immigration policies allow Islamists to form a large part of the electorate. This has implications for women's rights, democracy, terrorism, and religious tolerance (even if I am an atheist).

AQ using Ireland as a base for planning terrorism, or committing terrorist acts against us.

E: Increased racial tensions due to jobs being lost to cheap labour.

Bravo!

Dhimmi76

Diversity- the gift that just gives and gives...... :eek:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/23/wxen23.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/23/ixnewstop.html

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/03/content_286895.htm

This in a region which had hardly no Muslims a generation ago :mad:

Frank Grimes

Dhimmi76 wrote:

Diversity- the gift that just gives and gives...... :eek:

What's your point exactly?

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

There is NO reason to believe that the US in unique in this regard.

Except Arcade .. and get ready for this ... we have ... drum roll please ... a MINIMUM WAGE. So the idea that foreigner will come over here and work for sum alot less than an Irish person will is simply put idiotically wrong.

They can't work for less than minimun wage, which is what every unskilled Irish person gets. To the employer it makes no difference what so ever if they hire an Irish person or an immigrant, they work for the same money. What does happen is the Irish turn their noses up at the min-wage jobs that immigrants will gladly do. So next time you go into Burger King Arcade demand to be served by an Irish person and see how long you wait for your burger. Or how about the next time you go to the hospital demand to be see by an Irish nurse and wait in the waiting room till one comes. The fact is our economy and health service entirely dependent on immigrant workers. Put simply we would be f**ked without the immigrants here now, and we need a lot more of them. Unless you won't to go back to the wonderful 80s when we had the worse economy in Europe but also no black people.

:rolleyes: such dribble

arcadegame2004 wrote:

And we don't want foreigners, who know little or nothing about this issue, deciding it for us.

Oh the irony ... how about we don't want people like you who ignore facts and figures, who lies to support his point, and who scaremongers over topics he obviously know nothing about (cheap labour and employment come to mind) deciding in referendum :rolleyes:

The very idea that a flood of muslims/eastern europeans/whatever are going to sweep into the country, then vote in a referendum, then out number Irish citizens and change the country into an Islam state or block reunification or what every dribble you are spouting this week ... my god Arcade ... it boggles the mind ... do you REALLY believe this, or have you just gone so far down the road of being anti-multiculture, anti-imigration, anti-refugee that you have to come up with this utter crap just to not lose face.

Do you even know how many legal immigrant we would have to let in a year to out number Irish born citizens in say 10 years Arcade? How many.

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I will post the link when I find it but to the best of my recollection I read something in a newspaper around the time of the 2002 election where it mentioned them wanting a form of amnesty.

OK, but in the meantime, please stop posting it as fact, as something you think you might have read in some newspaper sometime around the time of the last election (three years ago) where they may have said something about something in particular isn't good enough for anyone.

billy the squid

actually most of the US does indeed have a minimum wage

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

but not all of it.

arcadegame2004

Except Arcade .. and get ready for this ... we have ... drum roll please ... a MINIMUM WAGE. So the idea that foreigner will come over here and work for sum alot less than an Irish person will is simply put idiotically wrong.

The US also has a minimum wage.

Also, I recall hearing something came up in the Dail (I think today or yesterday) when Socialist TD Joe Higgins complained to the Taoiseach about a specific company (called GRAM I think) hiring 957 non-EU migrant workers and paying them just 2 or 3 euro an hour. That is BELOW the minimum wage. So you are wrong to make out that having a minimum-wage by itself stops the cheap-labour competition.

Oireachtas Report is on at 11.50 so maybe something about it will come up there.

MadsL

So you are wrong to make out that having a minimum-wage by itself stops the cheap-labour competition

yet, it enables prosecutions to be brought if it is abused. Surely the answer is stiffer penalties on employers so that ALL employees are protected.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The US also has a minimum wage.

Also, I recall hearing something came up in the Dail (I think today or yesterday) when Socialist TD Joe Higgins complained to the Taoiseach about a specific company (called GRAM I think) hiring 957 non-EU migrant workers and paying them just 2 or 3 euro an hour. That is BELOW the minimum wage. So you are wrong to make out that having a minimum-wage by itself stops the cheap-labour competition.

Oireachtas Report is on at 11.50 so maybe something about it will come up there.

You appear to have left out the point about why Joe Higgins raised this at all.

Mr. J. Higgins: Many recent reports in the media have highlighted grievous exploitation of immigrant workers. In the construction industry SIPTU officials have found such exploitation. Recently the bricklayers union, BATU, was so concerned that it met the Polish and Lithuanian ambassadors to highlight a gross abuse of their nationals. I wish to raise, in particular, one major scandal of immigrant worker exploitation of massive proportions. There is a major foreign-based multinational construction company employing approximately 10,000 people, 2,000 approximately in this State, which has secured massive local authority and State contracts here. This company imports workers from its home base, who do not speak English, controls their passports and work permits, accommodates them often in company barracks, demands an extent of hours worked that can only be called grotesque and, incredibly, pays unskilled construction workers between €2 and €3 per hour basic pay and skilled workers somewhere over €3 an hour. In short, this is a modern version of bonded labour. The instigator is Turkish-based Gama Construction Ireland Limited.

The national minimum wage is €7 an hour. The registered employment agreement for the lowest paid operative in construction is €12.96 an hour. This case is a national scandal financed by extensive public funding. I call on the Taoiseach to ask the Minister and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as a matter of priority, to order an immediate investigation into Gama Construction and its pay and work practices. Will its records be demanded? Will the Taoiseach ensure that interviews are conducted with workers out of the way of company pressure? Will he ensure the Department sees that no worker is victimised as a result of this investigation and if Gama Construction should act to send workers home, a method used by these companies, those workers are sheltered and protected? I will ask SIPTU, to whom the company signed up some of its workers as a cover, to do so. Companies like Gama Construction not only exploit immigrant workers but undermine wages and conditions for all workers and, through crooked means, they underbid other companies who pay the full rate. This is a serious matter.


The Taoiseach: I reiterate that every worker is entitled to the full protection of the law. The workers referred to by the Deputy are entitled to full legislative protection. The inspectorate of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment can apply the full powers and rigours of the law to inspect the records and investigate any breaches. I am aware of some other cases where trade unions have asked the Department to investigate and this has been fully carried out. The Deputy has referred to the company by name. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is in the House and will raise the matter of inspection with his departmental officials. Legislation to deal with such cases is pending. Any information on the case will be followed up. The key point is that every worker is entitled to the full protection of the law. The minimum rate of pay has been agreed through the Labour Court and employers have an obligation under the law to pay that rate. The inspectorate implements the law and investigates any employer in breach of the law.


Mr. J. Higgins: As the Taoiseach stated, the workers have entitlements. However, these workers are vulnerable and afraid. That is why they need the security of knowing that any attempted victimisation will be resisted. I welcome the Taoiseach’s undertaking that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will take action. We will make every information available to the inspectors. There should be many more than 21 of them, by the way.

This company has done work for local authorities. It built the Ennis and Ballincollig bypasses and was proud of the fact that it completed the work six months ahead of schedule. That is easy when using a bonded labour force working eleven or 12 hours a day with two Sundays off in a month. The company can underbid because of these rates of pay.

I want the Minister to take personal charge along with the Secretary General of the Department because it is a serious allegation. This is not a fly-by-night operation from the boot of a car. This is a major company financed by major State public contracts. I will therefore keep a close eye on it. The rights of immigrant workers are paramount, as are the rights of Irish workers who are undermined by this.


An Ceann Comhairle: I advise the Deputy that it is not appropriate to name a company in the House when it is not here to defend itself.


Mr. J. Higgins: It is entirely appropriate because——


An Ceann Comhairle: No, Deputy, it is not. It is a long-standing precedent in this House.


Mr. J. Higgins: ——it takes advantage of its power over vulnerable workers to exploit them. I will not allow that to happen.


An Ceann Comhairle: There can be no argument about it. The Chair has ruled.


The Taoiseach: I do not know if Deputy Higgins or others have made a complaint to the labour inspectorate about the particular company. The Minister will raise the matter with the inspectorate. I note the Deputy has said he will make the information available to the inspectorate and this will be helpful. I reiterate that every worker in this country is entitled to the protection of labour law. This has been enforced in many cases. Members may remember a case three years ago where the Department took firm and positive action to uphold the rights of the workers who were from one of the now member states, then an applicant country. The same examination will take place in this case.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20050208.xml&Node=H6#H6

arcadegame2004

Low-wage competition comes with the territory of illegal immigration and non-EU work-permits, and, indeed, migration from the new EU member states. I agree tougher efforts at controls such be introduced to punish those violating minimum-wage legislation, but the Government has not indicated it has any plans for this. I doubt such changes will be brought in - after all cheap labour is what business wants and they fund most of the parties and the hand that rocks the political cradle is unlikely to be confronted by their political buddies. It is to be hoped though that there are enough persons of sound mind in the Government to resist further liberalisation of immigration rules.

You appear to have left out the point about why Joe Higgins raised this at all.

Why he said it is less important than what he said. It still helps prove my point on my warnings about cheap-labour competition. Remember, not every worker in this position is going to go to their local TD about it.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Low-wage competition comes with the territory of illegal immigration and non-EU work-permits, and, indeed, migration from the new EU member states. I agree tougher efforts at controls such be introduced to punish those violating minimum-wage legislation, but the Government has not indicated it has any plans for this. I doubt such changes will be brought in - after all cheap labour is what business wants and they fund most of the parties and the hand that rocks the political cradle is unlikely to be confronted by their political buddies. It is to be hoped though that there are enough persons of sound mind in the Government to resist further liberalisation of immigration rules.

Arcade it is illegal to explot workers, be they Irish or immigrants. Are you saying you are against immigration because you think these 3 euro jobs are being stolen from honest Irish folk.

You are blaming the exploited workers for the crimes of the shady companies that exploit them. Ridiculous in the extreme :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why he said it is less important than what he said. It still helps prove my point on my warnings about cheap-labour competition. Remember, not every worker in this position is going to go to their local TD about it.

Your "warning" was that we should stop immigration because the cheap labour is robbing true Irish people from getting a job. You argument is riduculous because we have a legal minimum wage, and anyone breaking that is paying employees illegally low wages. The "jobs" that are being taken away from Irish people are illegal anyway.

So you argument is nonsense scaremongering that doesn't hold up to any form of examination .. pretty much like the rest of your "warnings"

Immigrant wife

The vast majority of these immigrants who end up working at a rate less than minimum wage do not do this deliberately. They are recruited by agencies in their home country. Sometimes they are offered wages that aare less than the Irish minimum but are unaware of this. Because the cost of living in these countries is considerably lower than that in Ireland, they believe they are being offered a good wage and that they will be able to send money home to their families. They are often at the same time offered free accommodation ad airfare to Ireland. For this they are charged a recruitment fee by the agency, itself illegal. When they arrive and start working, they realise that the cost of living is far, far higher than they could ever have imagined and that the wages they have been offered are below the minimum wage. When they complain they are told to shut up and work otherwise they will be fired and deported. As they rely on the company for money and accommodation and have no means of paying for the airfare home (who could on less than minimum wage?), they are forced to work for this pittance for fear of being penniless, homeless and illegal in the country. They come to this country in good faith and are exploited by the Irish employers in this country. Other workers are offered a wage that is often at or above the minimum wage but when they get their pay packet, they realise that they haven't been paid the rate agreed. When they complain they are told the same as I have documented above.

Others have their passports "kept for safekeeping" by the employer so they cannot leave. Still others are brought into the country without work permits as they are told these can only be applied for by the employer once they are working so that he can prove he has employed them. The employer takes their passports ostensibly to have the work permit put in them but never gives them back and of course never apluies for the permit. The worker then realised they are working in the country illegally and will be deported if found out so out of fear just keep quiet and accept whatever terms they are given by the employer. The fear of deportation is so great, especially as many don't have a good command of English so can't check on the validity of the threats, that they will reluctantly put up with any abuse. Once you has been deported, it is virtually impossible to get into any other country.

I know of a South African who obtained a job as an accountant but at the end of the year when everyone (Irish) received the annual increase, she did not and when she queried this, she was told that if she didn't like it she could leave and go home. She had struggled because of her colour (white) to get a job in South Africa so was forced to accept the situation and had been in this situation for nearly three years . She is prevented from applying for another job as accountancy now falls within the sectors for which work permits are no longer being issued. She is resigned to the fact that she will have to work for peanuts until she has stayed long enough to get Irish citizenship and then she can look for another job. So there is exploitation of migrants at all levels and a miriad of ways in which to do it.

The Irish Immigrant Council produced two books last year which were endorsed by President Mary McAlese at their launch. These are entitled "Labout Migration into Ireland" and "Voices of Immigrants: The Challenges of Inclusion" and deal with immigration of the low skilled to the very highly skilled workers. They document numerous cases of abuse and exploitation of immigrant workers, each of which is representative of many similar cases they have dealt with. They also offer suggestions as to how the situation could be improved so as to protect migrants from exploitation and enable them to integrate into Irish society successfully. And no, they don't advocate wholesale immigration but they do feel that laws should be put into place to prevent Irish people from exploiting the migrants that do come here. It is recognised that the culprit is not the hapless immigrant but the Irish citizens who exploit them who are at fault.

Of course in all this there will always be those immigrants who deliberately enter the country illegally to work. But the numbers are not that high. Many, many of the illegals are immigrants who have been taken for a ride by Irish employers.

sackville

Immigrant wife wrote:

The vast majority of these immigrants who end up working at a rate less than minimum wage do not do this deliberately. They are recruited by agencies in their home country. Sometimes they are offered wages that aare less than the Irish minimum but are unaware of this. Because the cost of living in these countries is considerably lower than that in Ireland, they believe they are being offered a good wage and that they will be able to send money home to their families. They are often at the same time offered free accommodation ad airfare to Ireland. For this they are charged a recruitment fee by the agency, itself illegal. When they arrive and start working, they realise that the cost of living is far, far higher than they could ever have imagined and that the wages they have been offered are below the minimum wage. When they complain they are told to shut up and work otherwise they will be fired and deported. As they rely on the company for money and accommodation and have no means of paying for the airfare home (who could on less than minimum wage?), they are forced to work for this pittance for fear of being penniless, homeless and illegal in the country. They come to this country in good faith and are exploited by the Irish employers in this country. Other workers are offered a wage that is often at or above the minimum wage but when they get their pay packet, they realise that they haven't been paid the rate agreed. When they complain they are told the same as I have documented above.

Others have their passports "kept for safekeeping" by the employer so they cannot leave. Still others are brought into the country without work permits as they are told these can only be applied for by the employer once they are working so that he can prove he has employed them. The employer takes their passports ostensibly to have the work permit put in them but never gives them back and of course never apluies for the permit. The worker then realised they are working in the country illegally and will be deported if found out so out of fear just keep quiet and accept whatever terms they are given by the employer. The fear of deportation is so great, especially as many don't have a good command of English so can't check on the validity of the threats, that they will reluctantly put up with any abuse. Once you has been deported, it is virtually impossible to get into any other country.

I know of a South African who obtained a job as an accountant but at the end of the year when everyone (Irish) received the annual increase, she did not and when she queried this, she was told that if she didn't like it she could leave and go home. She had struggled because of her colour (white) to get a job in South Africa so was forced to accept the situation and had been in this situation for nearly three years . She is prevented from applying for another job as accountancy now falls within the sectors for which work permits are no longer being issued. She is resigned to the fact that she will have to work for peanuts until she has stayed long enough to get Irish citizenship and then she can look for another job. So there is exploitation of migrants at all levels and a miriad of ways in which to do it.

The Irish Immigrant Council produced two books last year which were endorsed by President Mary McAlese at their launch. These are entitled "Labout Migration into Ireland" and "Voices of Immigrants: The Challenges of Inclusion" and deal with immigration of the low skilled to the very highly skilled workers. They document numerous cases of abuse and exploitation of immigrant workers, each of which is representative of many similar cases they have dealt with. They also offer suggestions as to how the situation could be improved so as to protect migrants from exploitation and enable them to integrate into Irish society successfully. And no, they don't advocate wholesale immigration but they do feel that laws should be put into place to prevent Irish people from exploiting the migrants that do come here. It is recognised that the culprit is not the hapless immigrant but the Irish citizens who exploit them who are at fault.

Of course in all this there will always be those immigrants who deliberately enter the country illegally to work. But the numbers are not that high. Many, many of the illegals are immigrants who have been taken for a ride by Irish employers.

There's a point all you open boeder fundamentalists seem to be missing i.ie

A Country's duty is first and foremost to its own-not the whole blooming world and his dog. :mad:

Frank Grimes wrote:

What's your point exactly?.

You seem to be somebody who thinks denial is a river in Africa!!

oscarBravo

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Why he said it is less important than what he said.

I hope you don't apply that as a general rule. In my experience, people's motivations are a lot more important than their words.

Frank Grimes

sackville wrote:

You seem to be somebody who thinks denial is a river in Africa!!

Well why don't you explain to me then what the point of what he posted is?
What is it you think I'm in denial about exactly?

There's a point all you open boeder fundamentalists seem to be missing i.ie

It's been pointed out to you before that no one here is an open border advocate, something you've obviously decided to ignore.

sackville

Frank Grimes wrote:

Well why don't you explain to me then what the point of what he posted is?
What is it you think I'm in denial about exactly?

It's been pointed out to you before that no one here is an open border advocate, something you've obviously decided to ignore.

In denial of what ? The idea that many forms of immigration may bring consequences which many natives would find undesirable, harmfull to their well-being and even dangerous and, let's not forget, their offspring also.


As for ignoring I'd hate to give the monopoly of the 'ignoring' to the multicutural cultists who are past masters, it seems, at closing their already heavily indoctrained minds to any possiblity of sensible border control that doesn't fit into their idea of how things 'should' be and ignoring the possiblity that those who may disagree may do so out of concern and even (heresy of heresies) perhaps sound judgment and (wait for it) informed opinion.

I don't think that any advocate of open borders would be so foolhardy as to openly declare it. So therefore we are left to judge by actions (which as the old saying goes) speak louder that words ( which can be used to decieve anyhow) of those who are motivated enough to push against greater or even different restrictions.

The actions of the 'liberals' here seem to amount to attacks on any lion-hearted advocate of restrictions who'd dare to to voice them on this forum. This, it may be concluded, shows a unstated hostility to border controls period!!

They know they'd enjoy no chance of persuasion for the open border policy, so a tactical suppresion opposition, it seems, is a favoured means to achieve an unstated but really quite blatent end. You can fool some of the people etc.....

Frank Grimes

sackville wrote:

In denial of what ? The idea that many forms of immigration may bring consequences which many natives would find undesirable, harmfull to their well-being and even dangerous and, let's not forget, their offspring also.

Might, maybe, if...
Can you come up with anything concrete, or is this just a rehash of AG's "warnings" of the hypothetical threat we all "might" face?
Where has there been any indication that this country has been under any threat from non home grown terrorists in the recent past?
If you are so convinced of an Islamist terrorist threat to this country, what do you propose we do about it?
I've asked AG numerous times and the question has been ignored, maybe you can enlighten us?

I don't think that any advocate of open borders would be so foolhardy as to openly declare it.

Is this a Donald Rumsfeld style argument? Because we don't openly advocate open borders, it obviously means that we're hiding the fact that we advocate open borders?

The actions of the 'liberals' here seem to amount to attacks on any lion-hearted advocate of restrictions who'd dare to to voice them on this forum. This, it may be concluded, shows a unstated hostility to border controls period!!

Of course there should be restrictions, but reasonable restrictions.
All I can see coming from the "lion hearted" advocates here is bigoted racism.

sackville

Frank Grimes wrote:

Might, maybe, if...
Can you come up with anything concrete, or is this just a rehash of AG's "warnings" of the hypothetical threat we all "might" face?
Where has there been any indication that this country has been under any threat from non home grown terrorists in the recent past?
If you are so convinced of an Islamist terrorist threat to this country, what do you propose we do about it?
I've asked AG numerous times and the question has been ignored, maybe you can enlighten us?

Is this a Donald Rumsfeld style argument? Because we don't openly advocate open borders, it obviously means that we're hiding the fact that we advocate open borders?

Of course there should be restrictions, but reasonable restrictions.
All I can see coming from the "lion hearted" advocates here is bigoted racism.

'reasonable restrictions? But reasonable by whose standards?
By the standards which think the low-skilled Irish/unemployed don’t have a point of view ( probably, incidentally, the most bigoted opinion I read on these forums by many of your ‘liberal’,’ right on’ fellow travelers)?


BTW This thread has lost its origional purpose and drifted, so let's cross swords on a more suitable thread. Debate out here!

arcadegame2004

Of course there should be restrictions, but reasonable restrictions. All I can see coming from the "lion hearted" advocates here is bigoted racism.

You should have gone to specsavers then.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

You should have gone to specsavers then.

What?
Can you try answering some of the questions being put to you rather than posting inane one liners?

arcadegame2004

Frank, you seem to want absolute proof of something (and I mean 100%) before you will accept that immigration brings problems and not just benefits. You are entitled to your opinion. But I certainly would not consider the fact that you do not share my concerns about potential and actual problems caused by liberal-immigration policies to be evidence that I am not "answering some of the questions being put to" me.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Frank, you seem to want absolute proof of something (and I mean 100%) before you will accept that immigration brings problems and not just benefits. You are entitled to your opinion. But I certainly would not consider the fact that you do not share my concerns about potential and actual problems caused by liberal-immigration policies to be evidence that I am not "answering some of the questions being put to" me.

I have asked you each time that you've insinuated that all Muslims are terrorists what you would suggest we do to prevent Islamist terrorists from using Ireland as a base for attacks or however you put it. You haven't answered that, amongst other questions, but I'm interested to hear what you would suggest.

MadsL

actual problems caused by liberal-immigration policies

Ok, lets have some documented 'actual problems' then...

arcadegame2004

I have asked you each time that you've insinuated that all Muslims are terrorists what you would suggest we do to prevent Islamist terrorists from using Ireland as a base for attacks or however you put it. You haven't answered that, amongst other questions, but I'm interested to hear what you would suggest.

Quote where I said that "all Muslims are terrorists". I have NEVER said the words "All/Every Muslims are terrorists/criminals". Not once.

Ok, lets have some documented 'actual problems' then...

Well the situation I have mentioned and which has been quoted by some on the opposite side of the immigration argument to me, about the company GAM is one example.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Quote where I said that "all Muslims are terrorists". I have NEVER said the words "All/Every Muslims are terrorists/criminals". Not once.

I said insinuated.
So, are you going to answer my question then? Do you have any proposals regarding keeping all those terrorists out? Or is there some particular reason you won't answer that question?

arcadegame2004

Frank Grimes wrote:

I said insinuated.
So, are you going to answer my question then? Do you have any proposals regarding keeping all those terrorists out? Or is there some particular reason you won't answer that question?

Well, if as I proposed, the EU proposal on sending asylum-seekers to safe countries outside the EU while their applications are processed comes to fruition, then that will be one way, as we can then check their criminal records (assuming they have one) in their home countries and elsewhere. In the age of international terrorism, we are justified in going out on a limb to protect our freedoms and values (not to mention our lives).

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well the situation I have mentioned and which has been quoted by some on the opposite side of the immigration argument to me, about the company GAM is one example.

I for one would love to hear your interpretation of that problem.

ps the name of the company is "Gama Construction Ireland"

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Well, if as I proposed, the EU proposal on sending asylum-seekers to safe countries outside the EU while their applications are processed comes to fruition, then that will be one way, as we can then check their criminal records (assuming they have one) in their home countries and elsewhere. In the age of international terrorism, we are justified in going out on a limb to protect our freedoms and values (not to mention our lives).

our "values"?????