Visa amnesty for immigrants

arcadegame2004

therecklessone wrote:

A blatant lie.

The thread is titled "Visa amnesty for immigrants"

The original poster quoted the following:



There is no mention of asylum seekers in that, the thread title, nor the question posted by Dub13 in his first post. The original post can be read here in its entirity. I suggest you peruse it before you continue.

You're arguments on this topic are a fraud.

So should we do the same...?

That he what he said. Therefore he was asking should we also introduce a Spanish-style amnesty. The difference between an illegal-immigrant and an asylum-seeker with respect to Ireland is often hair-splitting in my opinion. Granted, it may be far less so with respect to Spain, their being so close to African countries with questionable human-rights records.

I mean he "asked". Apologise to mistyping the word suggest instead. But you get my drift.

GuanYin

arcadegame2004 wrote:

That he what he said. Therefore he was asking should we also introduce a Spanish-style amnesty. The difference between an illegal-immigrant and an asylum-seeker with respect to Ireland is often hair-splitting in my opinion. Granted, it may be far less so with respect to Spain, their being so close to African countries with questionable human-rights records.

I mean he "asked". Apologise to mistyping the word suggest instead. But you get my drift.

Your opinion isn't worth much up against a) the definition b) the question asked and C) the facts.

So why not try sticking to the topic instead of hijacking a thread, lying and promoting your biggoted beliefs?

MadsL

The difference between an illegal-immigrant and an asylum-seeker with respect to Ireland is often hair-splitting in my opinion.

*emphasis mine

However the law says a lot different. As does this thread.

arcadegame2004

So why not try sticking to the topic instead of hijacking a thread, lying and promoting your biggoted beliefs?

You have a very strange definition of bigotry if you define it as wanting tougher controls on immigration. Didn't see that in the dictionary alongside the term "bigotry". I will never apologise to anyone for my opinion that we need to have tougher controls on immigration. The fact that Spain is the only EU country that has brought in this liberal regime (even the leftish German government has criticised them for it), and the UK public say in polls that they think immigration controls in the UK need to be toughened, only goes to show that if wanting tougher controls on immigration is bigoted, then the term bigoted must also apply to most of the EU governments. Are you charging them with bigotry too?

I recall a number of persons in this forum during the referendum on citizenship calling Michael McDowell Herr McDowell or something similar, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.

MadsL

The fact that Spain is the only EU country that has brought in this liberal regime (even the leftish German government has criticised them for it), and the UK public say in polls that they think immigration controls in the UK need to be toughened, only goes to show that if wanting tougher controls on immigration is bigoted, then the term bigoted must also apply to most of the EU governments. Are you charging them with bigotry too?

How do you extrapolate "most of the EU governments" from German criticism and a UK tabloid "news"paper poll ???

No-one is accusing them of bigotry, what we are doing here {explains as if to child} is discussing if it would be a good idea here in Ireland. And NO we are NOT talking about asylum seekers!

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I recall a number of persons in this forum during the referendum on citizenship calling Michael McDowell Herr McDowell or something similar, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.

Herr Flick. He's been called that for reasons other than his views on foreigners or even people from working class areas since before he had views on immigration that he made public. It's nothing to do with the topic.

GuanYin

Well aside from employment issues I can think of an excellent reason to welcome immigrants with open arms.

Caucasians are the weakest race on the planet (some might even say inferior ) with the most susceptibility inherited genetic illness, age related disease, they are generally the unhealthiest and have the weakest immune systems (or least primed).

On top of that, they're the highest risk for skin cancer, which Ireland is rising in Ireland and is the most common form of cancer.

So the solution, bring in lots of immigrants and stir up the gene pool - Whaddya reckon Arcade?

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

The difference between an illegal-immigrant and an asylum-seeker with respect to Ireland is often hair-splitting in my opinion.

Bull.

All asylum seekers are legal until their application has been processed. Then their legality is dependant on the success or failure of that application, and all subsequent legal proceedings.

I found this useful definition of illegal immigrant:

An illegal immigrant is a person who either enters a country illegally, or who enters legally but subsequently violates the terms of their visa, permanent resident permit (green card) or refugee permit.

You might find this document helpful.

Legal and Illegal Immigrants: A distinction must be made between illegal entry to the country and illegal residence. Legal status is not necessarily dependent on entering the country legally or illegally. It is possible
for a person to enter the country illegally and then stay legally and vice versa. For example, many asylum seekers enter the country illegally (they do not have a visa and/or they do not report to an immigration officer on arrival) but, once they have applied for refugee status, they are entitled to remain in the country until the issue is settled. They are not illegal immigrants while a decision is being made on their application. When the procedures are finalised and if they fail to abide by a deportation order, then they are illegal immigrants.

So you see arcadegame2004, just because you keep confusing the issue of asylum/illegal immigration doesn't mean we all have to, and certainly doesn't mean you are right, or are justified in scaremongering by muddying the waters.

Now, I'd appreciate your response to the points I raised in this post and this post please. Take your time...

arcadegame2004

syke wrote:

Well aside from employment issues I can think of an excellent reason to welcome immigrants with open arms.

Caucasians are the weakest race on the planet (some might even say inferior ) with the most susceptibility inherited genetic illness, age related disease, they are generally the unhealthiest and have the weakest immune systems (or least primed).

On top of that, they're the highest risk for skin cancer, which Ireland is rising in Ireland and is the most common form of cancer.

So the solution, bring in lots of immigrants and stir up the gene pool - Whaddya reckon Arcade?

Sub-saharan Africa is the world's worst AIDS blackspot. Do you think that indicates greater genetic propensity to STDs?

Your reference to whites being "inferior" in my opinion is just as bad as accusing Jews or blacks of being inferior. It sounds racist in my opinion.

Provide a source please.

Have you considered our proximity to Sellafield as a factor in our hugh cancer rates?

billy the squid

Sub-saharan Africa is the world's worst AIDS blackspot. Do you think that indicates greater genetic propensity to STDs?

AIDS iis caused by unprotected sex and poor quality blood transfusions where as cancer is tied with an individual's genetic make up,

arcadegame2004

therecklessone wrote:

Bull.

All asylum seekers are legal until their application has been processed. Then their legality is dependant on the success or failure of that application, and all subsequent legal proceedings.

I found this useful definition of illegal immigrant:

An illegal immigrant is a person who either enters a country illegally, or who enters legally but subsequently violates the terms of their visa, permanent resident permit (green card) or refugee permit.

That definition in the quote applies to most asylum-seekers, judging by the fact that the great majority of claims processed so far have been found to be bogus.

It is indeed possible for someone to come here and avoid the asylum-system altogether and be an illegal immigrant, but it is harder to track those people who do not make themselves known to the State.

You might find this document helpful.



So you see arcadegame2004, just because you keep confusing the issue of asylum/illegal immigration doesn't mean we all have to, and certainly doesn't mean you are right, or are justified in scaremongering by muddying the waters.

Now, I'd appreciate your response to the points I raised in this post and this post please. Take your time...

I want a more hardline system that automates deportations on the basis of national origin, with the national origin allowing for such deportations being listed in an Irish or EU list of "safe countries". Since we are acknowledging that illegal immigration refers to a process, and removing the legalism about what the legal-status of people engaging in this activity for a moment, as far as I am concerned, it just doesn't stand up to common sense to say that someone from the developing world NEED to get to Ireland to escape torture, famine, or persecution.

Does anyone here really believe that someone from Libya needs to get to Ireland for safety? Does anyone SERIOUSLY think this? If so I suggest you get out a map and discover that the Meditteranean coast of the EU is "safety".

While I welcome the Government's efforts (in so far as they exist) to crack down on illegal immigration and loopholes like the Citizenship issue, I still think they are being too soft on the issue. The enhanced-cooperation provisions of the Nice Treaty should be used, in my opinion, to harmonise EU laws on asylum and immigration with the goal of removing incentives for asylum-seekers/illegal immigrations to move between EU countries in the search of softer systems.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I want a more hardline system that automates deportations on the basis of national origin, with the national origin allowing for such deportations being listed in an Irish or EU list of "safe countries".

Why? You have never ever given a valid reason why automatic deportation without assessment is necessary. As you freely admit a lot of applications are turned down (the real figure is 14% have been granted asylum since 1999) So the system, you would agree, is working fine. Why change it so we deport not only people who we would deport anyway, but also a whole load of people who are genuine asylum seekers. It is crazy.

You give the cyclical logic that anyone who applies for asylum in Ireland must be lying because you can't apply for asylum in Ireland without being bogus in the first place. So what about the 14%. You have never explained what you would do with them apart from deport back to their country of origin so they can be raped and killed.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It just doesn't stand up to common sense to say that someone from the developing world NEED to get to Ireland to escape torture, famine, or persecution.

Well you are wrong, as has been pointed out over and over again to you.

The only way to tell if someone is genuine or not is to individually assess their application. And you are against individual assessment. So, under your system we will be sending back people who will be at danger in their native countries because we cannot assess them. And at the same time we will be letting in people who are in no danger in their home countries. Which goes against the entire purpose of granting asylum.

You seem to completely miss the point that under a system with no individual assessment anyone from a "danger" country can get automatic refugee status even if they are under not danger in their own country.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Does anyone here really believe that someone from Libya needs to get to Ireland for safety? Does anyone SERIOUSLY think this? If so I suggest you get out a map and discover that the Meditteranean coast of the EU is "safety".

Sweet jesus acrade, can you not see the problem in that line of thinking. Do you think we should turn away every asylum seeker from Libya simply because they are applying for asylum in Ireland. That is ignorance and selfishness in the extreme. Why don't we just stop the asylum program all together.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

While I welcome the Government's efforts (in so far as they exist) to crack down on illegal immigration and loopholes like the Citizenship issue, I still think they are being too soft on the issue.

Arcade it has been pointed out to you over and over and over again that the foreign nationals having children in Ireland are over whelmingly here LEGALLY. Secondly, they all LEAVE after they have the child. How many times does this have to be said to you.

We have a current asylum system that turns away 76 percent of applications. How is that "soft"

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

That definition in the quote applies to most asylum-seekers, judging by the fact that the great majority of claims processed so far have been found to be bogus.

It is indeed possible for someone to come here and avoid the asylum-system altogether and be an illegal immigrant, but it is harder to track those people who do not make themselves known to the State.

You're right there. The first quote I gave you:

An illegal immigrant is a person who either enters a country illegally, or who enters legally but subsequently violates the terms of their visa, permanent resident permit (green card) or refugee permit.

Is from a Wikipedia article (which if I'm honest I shouldn't have quoted in the first place) dealing almost exclusively with US immigration. An by that definition, anyone entering the country illegally is an illegal immigrant.

But we're dealing with Ireland. I draw your attention again to the second source I cited, the Comhairle document available to view here

I quote again (and pay close attention to the bold type):

A distinction must be made between illegal entry to the country and illegal residence. Legal status is not necessarily dependent on entering the country legally or illegally. It is possible for a person to enter the country illegally and then stay legally and vice versa. For example, many asylum seekers enter the country illegally (they do not have a visa and/or they do not report to an immigration officer on arrival) but, once they have applied for refugee status, they are entitled to remain in the country until the issue is settled. They are not illegal immigrants while a decision is being made on their application. When the procedures are finalised and if they fail to abide by a deportation order, then they are illegal immigrants.

I say again, for clarity or emphasis, asylum seeker (whether they enter the country legally or illegally) does not equal illegal immigrant. Is that sinking in yet?

None of your subsequent comments in that post address the two posts I linked to in my last post. Here they are again:

Comment please?
Comment please?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Since we are acknowledging that illegal immigration refers to a process, and removing the legalism about what the legal-status of people engaging in this activity for a moment, as far as I am concerned, it just doesn't stand up to common sense to say that someone from the developing world NEED to get to Ireland to escape torture, famine, or persecution.

Far be it from me to introduce more questions to your already overworked little world, but I just have to address this.

I've said it more than once, but heres one more for good measure. The argument that you're making regarding geography is a conveniant cop out. By your reasoning there should be no asylum applications in this country due to our position on the periphary of Europe. Would you say the same if we were in Italy? Spain?

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

You have a very strange definition of bigotry if you define it as wanting tougher controls on immigration. Didn't see that in the dictionary alongside the term "bigotry".

You want tougher controls on immigration because you are a bigot Arcade...

You don't think it is bigotry to say you are against immigration because you believe that muslim immigrants are terrorists and that Nigerians, if they are allowed, will flood on mass in to our country to claim social welfare and then vote to stop an united Ireland.

Yes folks, he did actually claim all these things.

No Arcade, you ain't a bigiot at all... you just don't like non-Eu (ie non-white) people coming to Ireland ... don't trust them, you see, they want to sponge of the state and then eventually take over everything .. see all those poor non-EU (ie non-white) folk, well them'm will work for little money, or hell they just all want to claim welfare .. make decend Irish people lose their jobs .. and they have these strange ideas like "terrorism", that we had never heard of before .. and soon they will out number us and they will want their own Islamic state in Christian god fearing Ireland .... make it hard for us'm decend God fearing true Irish folk

:rolleyes:

GuanYin

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Sub-saharan Africa is the world's worst AIDS blackspot. Do you think that indicates greater genetic propensity to STDs?

Nothing, its purely down to poor medical practice and sexual activity.

What do YOU think it indicates?

Your reference to whites being "inferior" in my opinion is just as bad as accusing Jews or blacks of being inferior. It sounds racist in my opinion.

I'm not racist, I just hate white people

I never said they were inferior. I said some might say that. Not I of course. I see you are deliberately mis-quoting again. Nice to see you lying about facts at the source.

Provide a source please.

LOL
sure:

Impact of population structure, effective bottleneck time, and allele frequency on linkage disequilibrium maps.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Dec 28;101(52):18075-80. Epub 2004 Dec 16.

DAZL polymorphisms and susceptibility to spermatogenic failure: an example of remarkable ethnic differences.
Int J Androl. 2004 Dec;27(6):375-81.

Next.....

Have you considered our proximity to Sellafield as a factor in our hugh cancer rates?

No, generally you'll find that skin cancer has one cause - UV light.

So I haven't considered it because its wrong.

So happily debunked all your points, do you not reckon its in our best interest to breed for improved survival?

If you took away modern medicine, caucasians would probably have died out long ago

pickarooney

aha just remembered taht even US nationals are offically seeking asylum in Canada to avoid being sent back to Iraq, so you can even be a asylum seeker from the "safest" country in the world!!!

Saw a report on a couple of GIs who had deserted because they believed the war in Iraq to be unjustified. They're seeking asylum in Canada to avoid the death sentence back home.

Incidentally, why is it that there are two types of poster who are reviled by the majority of the contributors, namely a) posters with right-wing opinions who don't provide links, facts, evidence and never expand on what they say initially and b) posters with right-wing opinions who do provide links, facts, evidence and always expand on their initial statements? And why is anyone with a capitalist/right-wing/whatever POV always universally decried as a bigot?

GuanYin

pickarooney wrote:

Saw a report on a couple of GIs who had deserted because they believed the war in Iraq to be unjustified. They're seeking asylum in Canada to avoid the death sentence back home.

Incidentally, why is it that there are two types of poster who are reviled by the majority of the contributors, namely a) posters with right-wing opinions who don't provide links, facts, evidence and never expand on what they say initially and b) posters with right-wing opinions who do provide links, facts, evidence and always expand on their initial statements? And why is anyone with a capitalist/right-wing/whatever POV always universally decried as a bigot?

To be fair, its very rarely you get a right-wing poster who can string any sort of coherent arguement together, never mind one that actually pull out a reference from anywhere much better than www.right-wing-propaganda.com.
Even then you have to hope they actually understand, or are willing to try to understand there content of their reference.

Anyone who doesn't fall into those traps and can still make a case has my repsect at least. Noone on this threads done it.

pickarooney

syke wrote:

I never said they were inferior. I said some might say that. Not I of course. I see you are deliberately mis-quoting again. Nice to see you lying about facts at the source.

Except of course he quite clearly didn't quote you. The difference between a quote and a reference is at least as obvious as the difference between an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker.

syke wrote:

To be fair, its very rarely you get a right-wing poster who can string any sort of coherent arguement together, never mind one that actually pull out a reference from anywhere much better than www.right-wing-propaganda.com.
Even then you have to hope they actually understand, or are willing to try to understand there content of their reference.

Anyone who doesn't fall into those traps and can still make a case has my repsect at least. Noone on this threads done it.

That's your notion of fair? Dismissing someone with a different opinion as incoherent? That's plain and simple bigotry. Just because your stance on a particular issue falls into the "right-on" category and is supported by the majority doesn't make it any more coherent, valid or true.

While I don't actually agree with much of what AG says (in truth, I have little interest in this particular subject and have no facts, figures or personal experience upon which to form an opinion), he at least stays courteous and respectful despite being constantly ganged up on, insulted and threatened with banning, which is more than can be said for a lot of posters who escape criticism because they don't rock the boat through polite discussion.

GuanYin

pickarooney wrote:

Except of course he quite clearly didn't quote you. The difference between a quote and a reference is at least as obvious as the difference between an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker.

No, if I make the mistake again after you kindly explained it to me (tiems a hundred) then perhaps we're in the same ballpark.

That's your notion of fair? Dismissing someone with a different opinion as incoherent? That's plain and simple bigotry. Just because your stance on a particular issue falls into the "right-on" category and is supported by the majority doesn't make it any more coherent, valid or true.

Did I say that? I don't believe I did, but I will clarify your reference by saying what I was saying was that IF (and you seem to have missed this in the post, taking what you like from it, why does that sound familiar) somone did put together a coherent argument supported by solid facts, then I would heartily respect the posts. This hasn't happened, including your posts it seems.

While I don't actually agree with much of what AG says (in truth, I have little interest in this particular subject and have no facts, figures or personal experience upon which to form an opinion), he at least stays courteous and respectful despite being constantly ganged up on, insulted and threatened with banning, which is more than can be said for a lot of posters who escape criticism because they don't rock the boat through polite discussion.

Ah, "how easy do those with no retort cry foul of ill intention". AG2004 is a troll in my opinion.

Anyone who so blatently ignores the fatcs and figures put before him while refusing (I think its gone past failing) to put forward anything resembling a concrete reference to back up his own points, after a year of being asked, can only be acting that way out of sheer malice.

I would have no problem with him if he didn't constently lie, mis-quote, mis-construe, mis-read reference and ignore arguments he feels ill disposed to respond to. Unfortunately, thats all he does so his politics finish far behind the reason people don't like him.

But I enjoy your contribution. May more people who "have little interest in this particular subject and have no facts, figures or personal experience upon which to form an opinion" come in and call the situation. It makes the day more interesting

pickarooney

Can you use [sarc] or [wit] tags as I can't tell which parts of your post are serious?

arcadegame2004

Why? You have never ever given a valid reason why automatic deportation without assessment is necessary. As you freely admit a lot of applications are turned down (the real figure is 14% have been granted asylum since 1999) So the system, you would agree, is working fine. Why change it so we deport not only people who we would deport anyway, but also a whole load of people who are genuine asylum seekers. It is crazy.

You give the cyclical logic that anyone who applies for asylum in Ireland must be lying because you can't apply for asylum in Ireland without being bogus in the first place. So what about the 14%. You have never explained what you would do with them apart from deport back to their country of origin so they can be raped and killed.

What if their country of origin has a good human rights record? How is sending them back sending them "to be raped and killed"? Get real please!

And yes, I make no apology for holding the firm view that if someone travels to Spain, claims asylum, then travels to France, then to the UK, and is then smuggled into Southern Ireland, that their true motivation for coming here is to avail of what they consider a more generous system, or to work illegally, or to ultimately get Irish citizenship and benefit from an economy that is among the best performing in Europe.The asylum system was never intended to be used as a vehicle for economic migration.

HOWEVER, I have a way in mind of squaring the circle whereby using our sovereign rights under the Dublin II Convention that allows deportation on the basis of not being the EU country of first entry for asylum-seekers might theoretically lead us to deport people to a country ruled by an oppressive regime. It relates to a recent EU proposal which hopefully will come to fruition, namely, the proposal by countries including Denmark for asylum-seekers to apply for asylum in or to be sent to special EU reception centres outside the EU, e.g. in North Africa and the Balkans etc. while their application is being processed. Reference to some EU states opposing this is here, but it does have some support within the EU, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3585911.stm
This would guarantee that asylum-seekers' lives would not be in danger while at the same time removing any economic motivation behind applying for asylum. I see no reason why this idea should be opposed.

sackville

sceptre wrote:

Herr Flick. He's been called that for reasons other than his views on foreigners or even people from working class areas since before he had views on immigration that he made public. It's nothing to do with the topic.

Although I'd bet many of those people in 'working class areas' would thank him for his stance on Asylum abuse despite of what else he may stand for!

one of the great paradoxes of western politics is while the left profess to help the working class interests it's often the right who actually do

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It relates to a recent EU proposal which hopefully will come to fruition, namely, the proposal by countries including Denmark for asylum-seekers to apply for asylum in or to be sent to special EU reception centres outside the EU, e.g. in North Africa and the Balkans etc. while their application is being processed. Reference to some EU states opposing this is here, but it does have some support within the EU, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3585911.stm
This would guarantee that asylum-seekers' lives would not be in danger while at the same time removing any economic motivation behind applying for asylum. I see no reason why this idea should be opposed.

I don't doubt the idea you're espousing here (as I've heard in from other sources), but the link you provide makes no mention of EU governments opposition to reception centres outside the EU mainly because it doesn't mention reception centres outside the EU at all. This is as close as it gets:

Some states rejected proposals allowing failed asylum applicants to be deported to non-EU countries regarded as safe.

The rules will cover both refugees and others deemed to be needing protection.

<snip>

She rejected criticism from campaigners such as Amnesty International and the European Council for Refugees and Exiles that the EU wanted to adopt rules which would allow them to send refugees to non-EU countries where they could face persecution.

Still waiting...

therecklessone wrote:

None of your subsequent comments in that post address the two posts I linked to in my last post. Here they are again:

Comment please?
Comment please?

To those add:

therecklessone wrote:

The argument that you're making regarding geography is a conveniant cop out. By your reasoning there should be no asylum applications in this country due to our position on the periphary of Europe. Would you say the same if we were in Italy? Spain?

When you're ready...

arcadegame2004

Originally Posted by therecklessone
Still waiting...

Okay. To the first link you mentioned my reply is as follows: That is still a small minority of total asylum-claims and in no way disproves what I have said about the vast majority being bogus.

To your second link my reply is: The US Government will do as it pleases. I am more concerned about the Irish people as I live in Ireland.

It should be noted though that the context is quite different owing to the fact that there was no "American nation" in the eyes of people living in present-day US until they broke away from Britain. They passed from one European empire to another e.g. Dutch/French to British. The notion of an "American nation" only came into fruition at the time of the War of Independence. They are a nation whose national identity does not focus on ethnicity, but on principles like "No taxation without representation, right to bear arms etc.".

Ireland is therefore different to the US. Nearly every country outside the New World countries defines its nationality on a specific ethnic majority. That is not to say that we in Europe are racist, as we are not. We are just different from the melting-pots of the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia etc. Also, the US doesn't have problems like a territorial sovereignty dispute with other countries, whereas in Ireland there is a concern about the potential impact of mass-migration of non-Irish people into Ireland on the re-unification of Ireland. They don't know the history and therefore would see no reason to support unity.

Also, in the US, racial-tensions have not always been good. We don't want to import that into here. Homogenity is not so bad if it means we don't have NI-style strife. Multiculturalism is okay provided its kept a minority, but excessive multiculturalism might lead to "new Unionists" coming demanding a second partition. Remember that the Unionists sense of a separate national identity to the rest of us led to partition. So we ignore the lessons of history if we do not take into account these issues when framing na immigration policy.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Okay. To the first link you mentioned my reply is as follows: That is still a small minority of total asylum-claims and in no way disproves what I have said about the vast majority being bogus.

To your second link my reply is: The US Government will do as it pleases. I am more concerned about the Irish people as I live in Ireland.

It should be noted though that the context is quite different owing to the fact that there was no "American nation" in the eyes of people living in present-day US until they broke away from Britain. They passed from one European empire to another e.g. Dutch/French to British. The notion of an "American nation" only came into fruition at the time of the War of Independence. They are a nation whose national identity does not focus on ethnicity, but on principles like "No taxation without representation, right to bear arms etc.".

Ireland is therefore different to the US. Nearly every country outside the New World countries defines its nationality on a specific ethnic majority. That is not to say that we in Europe are racist, as we are not. We are just different from the melting-pots of the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia etc. Also, the US doesn't have problems like a territorial sovereignty dispute with other countries, whereas in Ireland there is a concern about the potential impact of mass-migration of non-Irish people into Ireland on the re-unification of Ireland. They don't know the history and therefore would see no reason to support unity.

Also, in the US, racial-tensions have not always been good. We don't want to import that into here. Homogenity is not so bad if it means we don't have NI-style strife. Multiculturalism is okay provided its kept a minority, but excessive multiculturalism might lead to "new Unionists" coming demanding a second partition. Remember that the Unionists sense of a separate national identity to the rest of us led to partition. So we ignore the lessons of history if we do not take into account these issues when framing na immigration policy.

I know some people get a bit worked up when words like "racist", "nazi", "bigot" etc enter the conversation round here so, based on the quoted post (and others), may I suggest "Xenophobe" as being an acceptable replacement?

xen·o·phobe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (zn-fb, zn-)
n.
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Okay. To the first link you mentioned my reply is as follows: That is still a small minority of total asylum-claims and in no way disproves what I have said about the vast majority being bogus.

And in reply to you I'll say that you only know this because I took your false statistics and provided you with the correct ones. It does prove that your original figures were wrong. I'll take it you accept that your original figures were wrong, and seeing as all of your calcualtions to date on this topic have been figments of your imagination, this calls into question your reliability as a commentator on this forum.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

To your second link my reply is: The US Government will do as it pleases. I am more concerned about the Irish people as I live in Ireland.

To that I say you're avoiding the question. And what passes for an answer from that point on continues in that vein.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It should be noted though that the context is quite different owing to the fact that there was no "American nation" in the eyes of people living in present-day US until they broke away from Britain. They passed from one European empire to another e.g. Dutch/French to British. The notion of an "American nation" only came into fruition at the time of the War of Independence. They are a nation whose national identity does not focus on ethnicity, but on principles like "No taxation without representation, right to bear arms etc.".

Ireland is therefore different to the US. Nearly every country outside the New World countries defines its nationality on a specific ethnic majority. That is not to say that we in Europe are racist, as we are not. We are just different from the melting-pots of the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia etc.

Of no relevance. I want an answer to a very simple question. Here it is:

Do you agree that by your own reasoning to date, illegal Irish immigrants to the US post-Independance should be deported as they are economic migrants, not refugees

Don't try your ethnic smokescreen again, I don't want to hear conjecture and fantasy about melting pots and the Irish being a minority in 30 years. I want a straight answer to a straight question. Put yourself in US shoes for a moment if that helps with the thought process.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Also, the US doesn't have problems like a territorial sovereignty dispute with other countries, whereas in Ireland there is a concern about the potential impact of mass-migration of non-Irish people into Ireland on the re-unification of Ireland. They don't know the history and therefore would see no reason to support unity.

More conjecture. Given your history of inaccurate calcualtions and fraudulent figures what makes you think this is any more reliable than your previous falsehoods? That so-called "concern" is a figment of your immagination.

I note the fact that you ignored the third question posed. :rolleyes:

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Also, in the US, racial-tensions have not always been good. We don't want to import that into here. Homogenity is not so bad if it means we don't have NI-style strife. Multiculturalism is okay provided its kept a minority, but excessive multiculturalism might lead to "new Unionists" coming demanding a second partition. Remember that the Unionists sense of a separate national identity to the rest of us led to partition. So we ignore the lessons of history if we do not take into account these issues when framing na immigration policy.

I can't let this fantasy slide.

What might create a "new unionism" arcade?

Maybe native Irish seeking to confer 2nd class status on immigrants so that they can only work for the minimum wage (or less, I'm sure that would suit your agenda) in the 21st century equivalent of indentured servitude?

Or embracing immigrants as fellow humans appreciating the efforts made by ithem to integrate and become active members of their community?

Which do you think is more likely to lead to a "new unionism" arcade?

arcadegame2004

I can't let this fantasy slide.

What might create a "new unionism" arcade?

Maybe native Irish seeking to confer 2nd class status on immigrants so that they can only work for the minimum wage (or less, I'm sure that would suit your agenda) in the 21st century equivalent of indentured servitude?

Or embracing immigrants as fellow humans appreciating the efforts made by ithem to integrate and become active members of their community?

Which do you think is more likely to lead to a "new unionism" arcade?

We weren't mistreating the Northern Protestants but look what happened.

billy the squid

We weren't mistreating the Northern Protestants but look what happened.

the northern protestants arent immigrants. especially s they are in the UK and not Ireland.

oh and what happened do tell.

arcadegame2004

billy the squid wrote:

the northern protestants arent immigrants. especially s they are in the UK and not Ireland.

oh and what happened do tell.

They are an example of a group of immigrant origin which did not assimilate into a common sense of "Irishness" with the rest of the Irish population. They said "We are not Irish. We feel British instead. Therefore we wan't to remain in the UK, not independent Ireland". I have lost count of the number of times Unionists have demonstrated that they do not feel Irish and instead feel "British". I recall Sammy Wilson saying that he feels British and not Irish.

We have endured one partition (what happened in other words) and there is NO way we can accept another.

By the way, Billy, if you are saying that NI is not part of Ireland, then most Irish people will disagree with that. 80% in Irish polls support a United Ireland. We have voted in the 1998 GFA referendum to insert our national aspiration for the end of the partition-spawned statelet. It is part of Ireland ,just not jurisdictionally. But it serves as a reminder of where the mass-migration road leads to in the end.