A seven-year-old boy (ffs!)

MadsL

How exactly can you make a factual statement 'Article 9 broken' based on a whole load of conjecture in your previous paragraphy. Basically no one knows exactly what happened.

You just proved the point Residents against Racism are making about a lack of transparency in the deportation process. QED.

county

if you have no legal right to be in this country ie an illegal immigrent you should be sent back to your country of origin.rules are rules!!

tim3115

Money well spent on these deportations, and it's good to hear the child is being sent back as well. But as mentioned earlier, not enough is being done to speed up the process and filter out the illegal ones.

As for Romania a member of the EU in 2 years time? I most certainly hope not, and am fearful of such a move. Their culture will not rest kindly with ours.

And what exactly has that Rosanna Flynn got to do with this? Any time an illegal immigrant is mentioned, she's on the radio in 2 seconds. How exactly is it racism? Breaking the law is what's going on, end of story. The amount of air time she gets is scary. Although it's all quite funny really.

tim3115

You just proved the point Residents against Racism are making about a lack of transparency in the deportation process

Do you want it broadcast around the country that such a person will be deported on Tuesday, no wait, after lunch...yes....


A bit of sense wouldn't go astray.

county

romania in the eu in 2 years time that is totally crazy,what next the russians

Simi

Simi wrote:

I swear to god you right wing idiots get dumber by the minute. Yes lets spend thousands even millions deporting a few hundred people every year so they can come back in 2 years time. So they're illegal immigrants atm. Does that harm you in some way?

Read the charter-Attack the post,not the poster.
Temporary ban

KnowItAll

KnowItAll wrote:

The more foreigners in the country the more it damages the culture of the country. I care about Irish culture but it's clear some people on this forum couldn't care less.

Attack the post , not the poster
Temp ban for that

bonkey

MadsL wrote:

Rte has it that the child will be deported tommorrow. I still maintain that the State acted against the UN Convention and broke Article 9.

...

You just proved the point Residents against Racism are making about a lack of transparency in the deportation process

How can you have it both ways. Either you know enough to make a judgement about Article 9, or you don't.

You can't glibly argue that sure, we don't actually know what happened which shows how bad things are, but at the same time, we know what happened which shows how bad things are.

Well...you can argue that...but you shouldn't expect too many people to be swayed by the persuasiveness of it

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will.

The State may bear some responsibility in the fact that the seperation occurred, but they did not perform the seperation. Regardless of whether the family were actively trying to hide the child, or - as you posited - merely asking someone to pick him up from school while they were detained, it was not the State's decision that whoever picked up this child would not bring the child to the parents.

Since the seperation occurred, the State has been - according to all the information that we've seen presented here at least - doing whatever in its power to reunite the family.

Seems to me like the State is taking its responsibilities under Article 9 very seriously indeed. It didn't seperate them, and is trying to reunite them.

At no time has the State taken action to seperate the child from its family. It detained the family sans child, but did not - that we know of - prevent the child from being brough to the family. It sought the child in order to reunite it with the family. It is still doing so.

I seriously doubt the situation would be any different if the parents were in a holding facility pending deportation rather than at the other end of the deportation process. It is not the State who is keeping them apart...

...Trust me, I have dealt with the GNIB on many occasions and they are not above this sort of thing...

...It would not suprise me to hear that...

So basically, you're hanging them on supposition and assumption, not fact.

I'm curious as to what you'd propose as an alternative? State goes to deport family, discovers child isn't there. Holding family in detention without child is no different to sending them across borders without child, so clearly that would also be - in your opinion - a breach of Article 9.

So, only logical solution is to not deport the people in question at all. Not just in this situation, but in any situation where the entire family can't be grabbed in one fell swoop.

Sounds like you've just handed asylum seekers a golden opportunity. They can claim that the practice of deporting failed asylum seekers forces them to live seperately to their child because its in the child's best interests not to return to its own home. So the very practice of deporting failed asylum seeking families will have to be abandoned in order to avoid benig in breach of Article 9.

Somehow, that doesn't sound like a very workable idea.

jc

Quantum

MadsL wrote:

I have a problem with the State breaking the UN Conventions, especially when it comes to the rights of the child, specifically when they are this young. Does that answer your question?

Yes it does - considering the state did not actually break any Convention whatsoever.
The family chose to leave the child with relatives. End of story.

The Corinthian

MadsL wrote:

You just proved the point Residents against Racism are making about a lack of transparency in the deportation process. QED.

And there was I thinking that they were just another front for the Socialist Workers Party.

Time Magazine

Draupnir wrote:

Plus, ya cant quote "Residents against Racism" on this, they are hardly an impartial source. Just another gang of PC mad fools running around on a crusade.

Right, by your calling of Residents against Racism "mad fools" I declare you "hardly and impartial source" and therefore stricken you from discussion from this thread, because you might be quoted :rolleyes:.

Time Magazine

county wrote:

romania in the eu in 2 years time that is totally crazy,what next the russians

Christ, no it is not totally crazy. That's an extremely racist comment to make. Romania does not equate to badness ffs.

And yeah, maybe the Russians next? So what? Afraid of them coming in and swarming the country with cheap labour as well?

I can't believe that this is really people's view of the E.U. and immigration with everything we have gotten from the E.U. and the millions of our ancestors who did exactly the same thing.

We're becoming a nation of hypocritical pricks.

And that's not aimed at anyone btw.

The Corinthian

Angry Banana wrote:

Christ, no it is not totally crazy. That's an extremely racist comment to make. Romania does not equate to badness ffs.

How exactly was what he said racist?

I can't believe that this is really people's view of the E.U. and immigration with everything we have gotten from the E.U. and the millions of our ancestors who did exactly the same thing.

Not wanting to be a pedant, but unless you're talking about Normans or Scots (or even Celts for that matter), our ancestors didn’t do the same thing because they didn’t leave in the first place (unless they left and came back).

Karl Hungus

What I find worrying is this part that's been outlined in bold, despite the fact that it's got absolutely nothing to do with what happened.

MadsL wrote:

Article 2
1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

Yes, MadsL. The family wasn't deported because they were here illeagally, the family was deported because the goverment is racist! :rolleyes:

Christ, if there's one thing that annoys me is the fact that any time the subject of illeagal immigration is broached, there's always someone to scream "Racist!"

And of course, in true RAR fashion, it's not just racism, it's "State racism!"

Time Magazine

The Corinthian wrote:

How exactly was what he said racist?

Referring to the Romanian accession as "crazy" in that tone absolutely smacks of a feeling of superiority. Ditto "What next, the Russians?"

Not wanting to be a pedant, but unless you're talking about Normans or Scots (or even Celts for that matter), our ancestors didn’t do the same thing because they didn’t leave in the first place (unless they left and came back).

Our ancestors didn't leave to another country, no? Nobody entered a foreign country to try their hand at a better standard of living, no? There are no illegal Irish immigrant in America at the moment, no?

That's not pedantry...

Time Magazine

I can't believe I missed this one....

The more foreigners in the country the more it damages the culture of the country. I care about Irish culture..

I presume you mean the retention of Irish culture? Is that its traditional culture? Or culture circa June 5th, 2005?

And if you care about the retention of Irish culture, I paraphrase:

Dr. Evelyn Mahon, Dept. of Sociology, TCD wrote:

The single largest driving force of Irish cultural change in the last century has been the emergence Celtic Tiger

and

Prof. Frances Ruane, Dept. of Economics, TCD wrote:

[I've recently been part of a study that will conclude] ... that Foreign Direct Investment and the buoyancy of the world economy were the main reasons the economic boom happened

If you really care about the retention of Irish culture: ban foreign firms and f*ck up the world economy.

I am not some mad monster raving lefty loony who does not call on immigration control, I do care about the Irish culture - the one of céad míle fáilte and the one of a white stripe between two opposing colours.

The Corinthian

Angry Banana wrote:

Referring to the Romanian accession as "crazy" in that tone absolutely smacks of a feeling of superiority.

Only if you’re jumping to conclusions.

Ditto "What next, the Russians?"

Again, only if you’re jumping to conclusions. There are actually numerous other interpretations to what he said that are far more plausible before making the assumption that it was a racist remark.

Our ancestors didn't leave to another country, no? Nobody entered a foreign country to try their hand at a better standard of living, no?

Unless they left for another country and then returned to Ireland they cannot be the ancestors of the Irish in Ireland. No doubt they’re the ancestors of many Australians or Americans or British, but not of the Irish in Ireland. Hence the point of pedantry.

There are no illegal Irish immigrant in America at the moment, no?

I’m sure there are. They’re not our ancestors though. They’re not old enough to begin with.

That's not pedantry...

If not pedantry it can only be a demonstration of your inability to form a logical or coherent argument without resorting to emotive clichés. So you pick which one it is.

Time Magazine

The Corinthian wrote:

Only if you’re jumping to conclusions.

Again, only if you’re jumping to conclusions. There are actually numerous other interpretations to what he said that are far more plausible before making the assumption that it was a racist remark.

Not jumping to conclusions, reading what was obvviously incinuated in his post. It is not an unreasonable conclusion. Of course he could have meant something else, but in all likelihood it's clear what he meant.

Unless they left for another country and then returned to Ireland they cannot be the ancestors of the Irish in Ireland. No doubt they’re the ancestors of many Australians or Americans or British, but not of the Irish in Ireland. Hence the point of pedantry.

Really? If my father leaves Ireland today and never returns, does he somehow lose his claim to being an ancestor of my children? If so, I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologise for my

inability to form a logical or coherent argument without resorting to emotive clichés.

I’m sure there are. They’re not our ancestors though. They’re not old enough to begin with.

See above.

If not pedantry it can only be a demonstration of your inability to form a logical or coherent argument without resorting to emotive clichés. So you pick which one it is.

Is that really the only other option? Now that's jumping to conclusions, and you're failing to stick by the rules with that post.

MrPudding

Draupnir wrote:

If those 64 people had stayed here, at €70 a week cost to the state, thats €224,000 spent just to let them live in our country. I like option 1 better. Save 100 grand and remove people deemed not to be eligible to live here.

Or let them get a job which is what they probably want to do in the first place. This way they start to contribute to the economy.

MrP

The Corinthian

Angry Banana wrote:

Not jumping to conclusions, reading what was obvviously incinuated in his post. It is not an unreasonable conclusion. Of course he could have meant something else, but in all likelihood it's clear what he meant.

That his comment was racist is clear only if you’re looking for a racist statement. To me, and frankly most others, it pointed to the question of overexpansion and nothing to do with race. Of course it may have been racist, but there’s simply not enough evidence to say so from the little he or she said - so it is an unreasonable conclusion.

As such you decided it was about race, for reasons that are no doubt your own.

Really? If my father leaves Ireland today and never returns, does he somehow lose his claim to being an ancestor of my children?

You’re now trying to use unusual or even unlikely scenarios for the purposes to proving your point. That’s why I pointed out that you could also be correct in the case of an emigrant returning to Ireland and then starting his or her family too - but how likely is that compared to an emigrant remaining in the country his or her adoptive country and either starting or bringing over their family? No doubt Ireland is populated by the decendants of returned emigrants, or emigrants who abandoned them :rolleyes:

In short, you came up with an argument that didn’t make a lot of sense unless you applied to some unlikely circumstances.

Is that really the only other option? Now that's jumping to conclusions, and you're failing to stick by the rules with that post.

Let me rephrase that, it’s the most likely other option - I accept that there may be others. But unfortunately, and more importantly, that you’re making sense however is certainly not.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

MadsL

Anyone see Prime Time Investigates tonight? Seems more than one child has been left behind - and one child deported who is an Irish citizen :mad: