Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Asylum Seeker protest on Kinsale Road. Mod warning in OP.

Options
1…910121415…17

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    mandrake04 wrote: »
    I never said they were economic migrants, an economic migrant can apply for a Permanent Resident visa these people don't qualify for PR.

    Instead they get on a rickety boat, throw their papers overboard and then claim asylum when they reach Australia. They are people from troubled countries that are selecting which countries they want to claim asylum in, Australian government is now telling them sure we will process you for asylum alright but to ensure you didn't choose Australia for economic reasons you will be settled else where.... it won't be Australia. It now appears they are going to be settled in Cambodia, and funny enough the boats have stopped coming.

    But,but...one can already hear the cries of "HEY...Thats not FAIR...!!!" from the assembled groups of concerned citizens against that sort of thing.

    The only real difference between us and the Australians is their administration tends to act first,whereas Irish administrations tend to require feasibility studies,working parties,task-forces and perhaps a judicial enquiry or two before making a provisional decision to think about acting...

    Anyway,whats wrong with Cambodia...?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #333
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    alastair wrote: »
    They're separate and distinct issues. And you're dishonestly attempting to conflate them.

    How can you honestly say that when you admit even yourself that the vast majority of asylum claims are false where they stem from would be economic migrants? When Ireland was doing well in the late 90's and early 2000's claims of asylum skyrocketed. There is a link.


  • Options
    #334
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    I suggest you're being somewhat obtuse at this stage. Ireland could improve the conditions it offers those here, Indonesia is a far from suitable destination.


    Going by the statement above, should then Ireland and other western countries open its doors to 252 million Indonesians?

    By the way Nodin have you ever been to Indonesia? I have and while it does not offer the same quality of life as Australia or Ireland I have seen worse, much worse.


  • Options
    #335
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    AlekSmart wrote: »

    Anyway,whats wrong with Cambodia...?

    Their minimum wage is not $16 an hour?

    What Mandrake said is completely correct. People here are still trying to undermine the policy for ideological political reasons. However, the numbers and success of the new policy speak from themselves and have actually saved hundreds of lives in the process. People will always act in self interest for economic reasons. Take away the incentive, people will 'shop' elsewhere.

    Still, the hard left will never be happy unsurprisingly. Groups like Socialist Alliance are usually at the front-lines perpetuating their own narrative. When pressed, it always comes back to "we could do more".. Yes, more but from what, to what and what cost? These questions are never fully answered (doesn't stop them throwing in a tax da rich comment), unsurprisingly.

    And by the way, Australia has one of the highest rates of asylum acceptance rates in the world, I think 3rd after Canada and the US, so Australia is doing its share.


  • Options
    #336
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mandrake04 wrote: »
    That's exactly right you said it yourself, they opt for the best economical country often living in Indonesia for months/years until they can secure a place in a boat. They are attracted by economic factors rather than fleeing to safety with only their shirt on their backs.....True Beggars can't be choosers

    Now that that economic factor has been taken out of the equation they are concentrating going somewhere else.

    The best country full stop, as would anyone with sense. Indonesia is a country that many would be wary of.
    jank wrote:
    Going by the statement above, should then Ireland and other western countries open its doors to 252 million Indonesians?.

    Any that qualify, yes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    The best country full stop, as would anyone with sense. Indonesia is a country that many would be wary of.

    How many and who specifically?
    Have you been there Nodin?
    What exactly is to be wary of?

    <off to Google you go..>

    Given the issue of the girl in 'case y' should many people be wary of being in Ireland especially while being pregnant?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Any that qualify, yes.
    You state that Indonesia is not a suitable destination for asylum seekers. Why?


  • Options
    #338
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    .........................

    You state that Indonesia is not a suitable destination for asylum seekers. Why?


    Given the actions of the state during the Suharto years, what went on in East Timor and whats going on in West Papua its hardly a model of stability and human rights.

    Theres also an increased trend of hostility and violence towards non-Sunni muslims.
    http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/02/28/religion-s-name


  • Options
    #339
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    Given the actions of the state during the Suharto years, what went on in East Timor and whats going on in West Papua its hardly a model of stability and human rights.

    Theres also an increased trend of hostility and violence towards non-Sunni muslims.
    http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/02/28/religion-s-name

    Do you have proof that migrants or asylum seekers are threatened in a large scale systematic manner?

    Ireland had the troubles in the North, so bringing up history to back up your
    point is scurrilous.

    Care to comment on Ms. 'Y'?


  • Options
    #340
    mandrake04
    Registered Users Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    Nodin wrote: »
    The best country full stop, as would anyone with sense.

    Yes best country for handouts etc ....purely economic. Many arrive on the boats with iPhones and Raybans

    The poor buggers in a UN camp that has hardly shirt on their back and a sandal on their foot, what Australia did was elect to take these the genuine refugees and send the queue jumpers somewhere less desirable.

    Boat people dropped by 99%, how strange is that?
    Nodin wrote: »
    Indonesia is a country that many would be wary of.

    Yet they travel there of their own free will, live there for months/years while waiting for a boat place to Australia. If they are so wary why travel there in the first place?


  • Options
    #341
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    Do you have proof that migrants or asylum seekers are threatened in a large scale systematic manner??

    I have proof that miborities are threatened, which is obviously enough.
    jank wrote: »
    Ireland had the troubles in the North, so bringing up history to back up your
    point is scurrilous.?

    Given that one of the legacies of that is the level of violence against minorities in loyalist areas, no, not at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    I have proof that miborities are threatened, which is obviously enough.
    Which doesn't answer any point.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Given that one of the legacies of that is the level of violence against minorities in loyalist areas, no, not at all.

    So one could legitimately claim that the UK was not a safe place for asylum seekers during the troubles, because of that logic.


  • Options
    #343
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mandrake04 wrote: »
    Yes best country for handouts etc ....purely economic. Many arrive on the boats with iPhones and Raybans

    Why does it matter to you that refugees have ray bans or smart phones? They're not economic migrants, and their asylum case isn't determined on the basis of their poverty or wealth.


  • Options
    #344
    mandrake04
    Registered Users Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    alastair wrote: »
    Why does it matter to you that refugees have ray bans or smart phones? They're not economic migrants, and their asylum case isn't determined on the basis of their poverty or wealth.

    Well since you asked it does matter to me because its my taxes that pay for them, I have the vote and I voted last September to stop the boats. I don't mind Australia doing its bit (which is more than generous) taking genuine refugees in need from a UN camp.... but not those who turn up in boats with smart phones and designer sunnies.

    Simply its my country and I have a say who gets into it.... as I'm entitled to.

    Oh and again I never said they were economic migrants, I said they were economic refugees... Potential refugees who seek out specific countries for economic reasons. Have you trouble reading English or something?

    I find your posts most comical and laughable, your out of your depth here.


  • Options
    #345
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mandrake04 wrote: »
    Well since you asked it does matter to me because its my taxes that pay for them, I have the vote and I voted last September to stop the boats. I don't mind Australia doing its bit (which is more than generous) taking genuine refugees in need from a UN camp.... but not those who turn up in boats with smart phones and designer sunnies.

    Simply its my country and I have a say who gets into it.... as I'm entitled to.

    Oh and again I never said they were economic migrants, I said they were economic refugees... Potential refugees who seek out specific countries for economic reasons. Have you trouble reading English or something?

    I find your posts most comical and laughable, your out of your depth here.

    There's no such thing as economic refugees. There are however, refugees - and the possession of a smart phone, or designer shades doesn't factor into whether they're entitled to asylum or not. Whatever way you choose to vote, or whatever you like your taxes spent on, don't change those realities. You don't get a say on whether someone is a legitimate refugee or not, that's laid down in international law. You certainly have a personal say in what economic migrants (like yourself) are allowed into Australia, just not on whether a refugees's status is determined by what possessions they have.

    My grasp of English is fine, thanks. The problem lies with your grasp of the distinction between a refugee and an economic migrant.


  • Options
    #346
    mandrake04
    Registered Users Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    alastair wrote: »
    There's no such thing as economic refugees. There are however, refugees - and the possession of a smart phone, or designer shades doesn't factor into whether they're entitled to asylum or not. Whatever way you choose to vote, or whatever you like your taxes spent on, don't change those realities. You don't get a say on whether someone is a legitimate refugee or not, that's laid down in international law. You certainly have a personal say in what economic migrants (like yourself) are allowed into Australia, just not on whether a refugees's status is determined by what possessions they have.

    My grasp of English is fine, thanks. The problem lies with your grasp of the distinction between a refugee and an economic migrant.

    Again I never said they were not refugees, as per the government (that I voted for) once processed like you say by international law and determined as legitimate refugees they are going somewhere else... at the moment its Nauru and Manus Island but soon to be Cambodia.

    They are still legitimate refugees alright... but they will be sitting in Cambodia.

    What possessions they have does not determine their status but their arrival by boat determines they end up.

    What you say does not matter its not your country.


  • Options
    #347
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Mod:

    Keep it civil and play the ball, not the man!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #348
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mandrake04 wrote: »
    Again I never said they were not refugees, as per the government (that I voted for) once processed like you say by international law and determined as legitimate refugees they are going somewhere else... at the moment its Nauru and Manus Island but soon to be Cambodia.
    International law doesn't give one hoot about whether a refugee has a smartphone or raybans though. Which was my point.
    mandrake04 wrote: »
    They are still legitimate refugees alright... but they will be sitting in Cambodia.
    And thereafter, quite possibly, Australia - based on the merit of their asylum application.
    mandrake04 wrote: »
    What possessions they have does not determine their status but their arrival by boat determines they end up.
    Not really. Many refugees that arrived by boat end up with refugee status in Australia. It's down to the merit of their application.
    mandrake04 wrote: »
    What you say does not matter its not your country.
    Nice. But actually they're not rules that Australia can opt out of. It has a responsibility to treat asylum applicants equally, regardless of whether they have an iphone or not.


  • Options
    #349
    mandrake04
    Registered Users Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    alastair wrote: »
    International law doesn't give one hoot about whether a refugee has a smartphone or raybans though. Which was my point.


    Your point was moot and of little value.

    I never said it was, If you read back I just said they wouldn't be settled in Australia.
    alastair wrote: »


    And thereafter, quite possibly, Australia - based on the merit of their asylum application.


    Ha Ha ...Nope they wont, once they go to Cambodia they will never be settled in Australia. They wouldn't even get a visitors visa.

    Merit of their application has nothing to do with it, come by boat after July 2013 no Australian Visa.
    alastair wrote: »
    Not really. Many refugees that arrived by boat end up with refugee status in Australia. It's down to the merit of their application

    As above nothing to do with merit of application, arrive by boat after July 2013 and its offshore processing and then shipped off somewhere else... simple.

    Pre July 2013 and they mostly already absorbed in to the refugee program by now anyway, those pre July 2013 that are still in detention are to given rolling 3 year TPV which is not permanent settlement and when the dust settles in their own country that's where they will be returned.

    Although some who are prepared to do 5 years honest work in the outback 'might' have the chance to be settled.

    alastair wrote: »

    Nice. But actually they're not rules that Australia can opt out of. It has a responsibility to treat asylum applicants equally, regardless of whether they have an iphone or not.

    doesnt matter if they have 20 iphones, arrive by boat after July 2013 and its off to offshore processing as per Rudd government.

    which is different to onshore processing...ie definitely NOT equal but within the rules you mention.

    When the Libs got voted in they cemented the offshore processing and as per their election promises settle them somewhere else, as long as the country they are sending them to is accepting and is a signatory to the UN then there is no problem.


  • Options
    #350
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mandrake04 wrote: »
    Ha Ha ...Nope they wont, once they go to Cambodia they will never be settled in Australia. They wouldn't even get a visitors visa.

    Given that some of those Australian-bound refugees forced to Indonesian refugee camps ended up with Australian visas, I wouldn't be so sure.


  • Options
    #351
    mandrake04
    Registered Users Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    alastair wrote: »
    Given that some of those Australian-bound refugees forced to Indonesian refugee camps ended up with Australian visas, I wouldn't be so sure.

    Do you actually know what you are talking about?

    As above those who arrived before 19th July 2013 were treated differently, after July 2013 there is NO Exceptions and no visas.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    mandrake04 wrote: »
    Do you actually know what you are talking about?

    As above those who arrived before 19th July 2013 were treated differently, after July 2013 there is NO Exceptions and no visas.

    Like ping-pong,this could last a while....however,I think it is indicative of a largely different mindset amongst A Country,it's Citizens and their Government.

    Ireland and it's people have never embraced decisiveness or clarity in most matters.

    Our comfort zone is usually to be found somewhere in the middle of any decisive debate,never committing until,a) It is too late or b) We are coerced into it.

    Irish Politicians and Governments who are of a mind to Lead in terms of Administration,tend to find themselves set adrift asap,by the Hurler on the Ditch electorate.

    Countries who take decisive action on any issue tend to be viewed somewhat warily here,and that is'nt really an issue until a topic arises which cannot be settled with an "Irish Solution",then we tend to find ourselves slipping further down into a mess of our own making.

    Facilitating and maintaining the endless and largely frivolous multiple appeals,judicial reviews,special considerations et al is par for our course,whereas rapidly placing failed Asylum Seekers on an outbound flight/sailing presents us with a crisis of conscience ?

    Had Ireland adopted an antipodean attitude to unsuccessful Asylum applicants over the past decade,we might not even have a Kinsale Road Centre to be agonising over ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #353
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    Which doesn't answer any point.
    .

    It does.
    jank wrote: »
    So one could legitimately claim that the UK was not a safe place for asylum seekers during the troubles, because of that logic.


    The North of Ireland wasn't.


  • Options
    #354
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    AlekSmart wrote: »

    Had Ireland adopted an antipodean attitude to unsuccessful Asylum applicants over the past decade,we might not even have a Kinsale Road Centre to be agonising over ?


    You mean playing populist reactionary politics with the issue.


  • Options
    #355
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    The North of Ireland wasn't.

    Northern Ireland is part of the UK, just like East Timor was part of Indonesia. You highlighted events in the past as a measure of how unsafe Indonesia is/was therefore it is not safe for asylums seekers to settle there. Therefore the same must apply for the UK, which of course makes your point look absurd on reflection.

    Now Indonesia may not be the most suitable destination in the world (where is?), yet it is an adequate destination for most seeking safety.

    Also, care to speak about Ms Y? Have asked you 3 times now, avoiding the question? Would it stand to reason that given what happened here, asylum seekers would be wise to avoid Ireland as like Indonesia it is not an ideal location?


  • Options
    #356
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    Northern Ireland is part of the UK, just like East Timor was part of Indonesia.

    The problems of Indonesia are not limited to one region.
    jank wrote: »
    You highlighted events in the past as a measure of how unsafe Indonesia is/was therefore it is not safe for asylums seekers to settle there. Therefore the same must apply for the UK, which of course makes your point look absurd on reflection.
    Events are unfortunately not confined to the past. The link I provided contains the relevant information. You might read it at some stage.

    jank wrote: »
    Also, care to speak about Ms Y? Have asked you 3 times now, avoiding the question? Would it stand to reason that given what happened here, asylum seekers would be wise to avoid Ireland as like Indonesia it is not an ideal location?

    No, those seeking an abortion would be wise to avoid Ireland as a destination.


  • Options
    #357
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, those seeking an abortion would be wise to avoid Ireland as a destination.
    Why?

    Is there any proof that women are ever refused permission to travel to the UK for abortions?

    Previous Governments, on record, have said permission to travel was granted.

    I don't know of any justification for a claim that the State does not facilitate asylum seekers who wish to procure abortions. Do you? Please don't say Miss Y. I'd rather not bang my head off the desk.


  • Options
    #358
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Why?

    Is there any proof that women are ever refused permission to travel to the UK for abortions?

    Previous Governments, on record, have said permission to travel was granted.

    I don't know of any justification for a claim that the State does not facilitate asylum seekers who wish to procure abortions. Do you? Please don't say Miss Y. I'd rather not bang my head off the desk.

    In the y case she was given all the information about how and where to get an abortion and the associated costs .
    her lack of travel papers and apparently lack of knowledge of the our laws caused the majority of the problems.
    But not exactly a discussion for this thread
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #359
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Why?

    Is there any proof that women are ever refused permission to travel to the UK for abortions?

    Previous Governments, on record, have said permission to travel was granted.

    I don't know of any justification for a claim that the State does not facilitate asylum seekers who wish to procure abortions. Do you? Please don't say Miss Y. I'd rather not bang my head off the desk.

    I'm not aware of any justification for saying that they do, hence the remark. However this is leading to the rabbit hole I was hoping to avoid.


  • Options
    #360
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Nodin wrote: »
    The problems of Indonesia are not limited to one region.

    Moving the goalposts once again.

    Nodin wrote: »
    No, those seeking an abortion would be wise to avoid Ireland as a destination.
    And what about women who fall pregnant while in Ireland?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    jank wrote: »
    Moving the goalposts once again.

    No goalposts were moved.
    jank wrote: »
    And what about women who fall pregnant while in Ireland?


    What about them?


Advertisement