Mick Wallace crying in the Dail

AlekSmart

thattequilagirl wrote: »

By whose definition?

I'm aware that refugees are meant to seek asylum in the first country I land in. I haven't seen any recognised body claim that if they move to a different country they are not refugees any more.

Do you have a link for that?

You're presumably referring to The Dublin Convention/Dublin (3) Regulation which are the subject of much discourse wherever Issues Refugee related are debated.

Plenty of Dublin (3) stuff here,as it's the most recent of the E.U.'s regulations,however lawyers specialising in this sector will happily trawl back beyond thedawn of time,if it gets their client a day longer in the State of their choice.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604

Article 3 is a well stated piece...

Article 3

Access to the procedure for examining an application for international protection

1. Member States shall examine any application for international protection by a third-country national or a stateless person who applies on the territory of any one of them, including at the border or in the transit zones. The application shall be examined by a single Member State, which shall be the one which the criteria set out in Chapter III indicate is responsible.

2. Where no Member State responsible can be designated on the basis of the criteria listed in this Regulation, the first Member State in which the application for international protection was lodged shall be responsible for examining it.

Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State primarily designated as responsible because there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the determining Member State shall continue to examine the criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether another Member State can be designated as responsible.

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the application was lodged, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible.

3.Any Member State shall retain the right to send an applicant to a safe third country, subject to the rules and safeguards laid down in Directive 2013/32/EU.

Persuading alledged "Refugees" to voluntarily register and submit to fingerprinting or associated biometric registration processess is proving VERY challenging across the new E.U.frontiers.

It would appear that whatever horrors were experienced in whatever warzones are being fled,have nothing on the threat of being registered and identifiable within the new European homeland...perhaps a bit odd that ?

3 is a magic number in some cases....;)

Eugene Norman

thattequilagirl wrote: »

There's no need to divide your empathy by national or religious lines. Europe is the richest continent in the world. We can afford to do both - look after our own and help others.

No we can't. Unemployment is high in many countries and housing is limited.

Btw a lot of refugees allowed in the past depended on private households putting people up. Internal migration in WWII in the uk was entirely private housing. Unless the rich and middle classes put up (or are forced to) they can shut up.

Sam Kade

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

So, you've a problem with men who wear mascara eh?

Fcuking pansies is what they are.

Eugene Norman

tomwaterford wrote: »

TBF France could just as easily pull the plug on that camp there and security measures and let them through and let it be England's problem :pac:

? They still have to get to the UK.

AlekSmart

thattequilagirl wrote: »

There's no need to divide your empathy by national or religious lines. Europe is the richest continent in the world. We can afford to do both - look after our own and help others.

Perhaps a brief soujourn in some of the less photogenic parts of the current European Union might stimulate (even a partial) rethink of that viewpoint.

Empathy does'nt enter into it,having a reasonable viewpoint based upon the reality of whats being suggested,does.

You state unequivocally that Europe can Look after it's own AND help others,which can of course be true,and in fact demonstrably is true.

However,the statement is only accurate,in so far as the limits of reasonableness can be applied.

Ireland could indeed (Kinda) "Look after it's own" AND accept 280 refugees to be afforded the same standard of "looking after" ...however,virtually overnight this became 600,and currently stands at some 4,000 in the current flap.

Now,whether Ireland has Increased it's Refugee/Asylum budget,by the factor necessary to provide the same standards of "Looking After" to the 4,000 as the original 280 were going to get,is open to debate.

Whatever about Europe being the "Richest Continent in the World",Ireland may well find itself slipping down a tad within that table,as it struggles to find an amount in excess of the €640,000,000 which we already provide,to allieviate the suffering of unfortunates worldwide.
We (Ireland) are doing more than our fair share,to aid and otherwise assist vast swathes of Planet Earth,and we need not be slow in standing up to the likes of Deputy Wallace as he embarks on another little bit of deflective media management...Up Wexford ! is right...:eek:

Galwayguy35

Why don't the rich arab countries take more of them in, same culture and religion.

Apart from Jordan none of them are making any effort at all.

And it doesn't take a genius to work out why they want to go to Britain, it's for the generous benefits system they have.

tomwaterford

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Why don't the rich arab countries take more of them in, same culture and religion.

Apart from Jordan none of them are making any effort at all.

And it doesn't take a genius to work out why they want to go to Britain, it's for the generous benefits system they have.

This being Britain where the dole Is 50 a week??

Though it is a good amd valid question as to why other Arab countries don't take them....unless they don't feel safe there??

Galwayguy35

tomwaterford wrote: »

This being Britain where the dole Is 50 a week??

Though it is a good amd valid question as to why other Arab countries don't take them....unless they don't feel safe there??

Well I was thinking of the free health care rather than the dole tbh.

retro:electro

This thread title sounds like it could be the next Saw Doctors song..

Galwayguy35

anna080 wrote: »

This thread title sounds like it could be the next Saw Doctors song..

Well I suppose they were the only good thing that ever came out of Tuam.

511

tomwaterford wrote: »

This being Britain where the dole Is 50 a week??

They think the UK is the Land of Milk and Honey but I'd say they get a big surprise when they get their dole money. Here's a few interviews from the migrants in Calais:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/calais-chaos-desperate-migrants-explain-6168686

JoseWasntReady

Omari Uneven Zombie wrote: »

Whilst there is no doubt that truckers are running a gauntlet that's not really the issue here.

I've little time for Wallace, mostly I can't stand him. But a very good friend of mine traveled with Calais with him (I won't name him completely but Clare Daly referred to him as 'Gary, solicitor from Dublin) and honestly the video and photos from 'The Jungle' would bring a tear to a glass eye.

I've no idea what the solution is. I'm pretty much against opening the gates to an influx of refugees and I argue with my friend (Gary) re. re-enforcing Europe's borders (I'm pro stronger border measures).

But we can't ignore the plight of those living in The Jungle. We wouldn't have dogs, pigs or rats live in similar.

They are perfectly entitled to claim asylum in France or Italy and whatever other country they travelled through. The French want them out of the jungle and have opened up perfectly acceptable accomodation centres.They are there by choice, are taking the piss and are making life hell for the residents of Calais and those who have to travel through the area.

Your solicitor friend (immigration lawyer?), Daly and Wallace can visit, tut tut and then go back home to their middle class irish suburban home. The locals in Calais have to deal with it daily.

The One Doctor

Tabnabs wrote: »

Is France really that terrible a country to start a new life in?

I have a cupboard labelled 'Good French Things'.

It's completely empty.

Mongfinder General

JoseWasntReady wrote: »

They are perfectly entitled to claim asylum in France or Italy and whatever other country they travelled through. The French want them out of the jungle and have opened up perfectly acceptable accomodation centres.They are there by choice, are taking the piss and are making life hell for the residents of Calais and those who have to travel through the area.

Your solicitor friend (immigration lawyer?), Daly and Wallace can visit, tut tut and then go back home to their middle class irish suburban home. The locals in Calais have to deal with it daily.

I'm sure Wallace's constituents would be only too happy to facilitate a few thousand migrants

YFlyer

thattequilagirl wrote: »

There's no need to divide your empathy by national or religious lines. Europe is the richest continent in the world. We can afford to do both - look after our own and help others.

Well said.

JoseWasntReady

thattequilagirl wrote: »

There's no need to divide your empathy by national or religious lines. Europe is the richest continent in the world. We can afford to do both - look after our own and help others.

Instead of we, why not me. There's nothing stopping you or Wallace or Daly pooling together and sponsoring some of these lads to come over here and study.

YFlyer

JoseWasntReady wrote: »

Instead of we, why not me. There's nothing stopping you or Wallace or Daly pooling together and sponsoring some of these lads to come over here and study.

Are there scholarship or some sort of EU education schemes to bring some Syrian students over?

Mongfinder General

JoseWasntReady wrote: »

Instead of we, why not me. There's nothing stopping you or Wallace or Daly pooling together and sponsoring some of these lads to come over here and study.

Tut, tut. Asking others to put their money where there mouth is. Don't you know it's the guberment's responsibility?

YFlyer

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Tut, tut. Asking others to put their money where there mouth is. Don't you know it's the guberment's responsibility?

Government is a reflection of society.

JoseWasntReady

YFlyer wrote: »

Are there scholarship or some sort of EU education schemes to bring some Syrian students over?

The "Syrian Humanitarian Admission Programme" (SHAP). You'll be hard pressed to find many Syrians in Calais though.

Mongfinder General

YFlyer wrote: »

Government is a reflection of society.

So why isn't society a reflection of government?

mynamejeff

purplepanda wrote: »

Wallace doesn't seem to be worried about local issues in south Wexford, such as high rural unemployment, lack of third level education, bad transport links & closure of local rail lines & attracting industry, jobs & investment to the south east. :mad:

Why Wexford vote in this crusty pacifist tramp dressed in pink who does nothing for local people is beyond me!

Why would he give a bollox about wexford ?

He is a millionaire with assets hidden in his familys names all across Europe on a huge wage living in clontarf co Dublin ?

He will not be back creeping around wexford again until he wants more of your votes and to my dismay he will problem get some of them.

JoseWasntReady

mynamejeff wrote: »

Why would he give a bollox about wexford ?

He is a millionaire with assets hidden in his familys names all across Europe on a huge wage living in clontarf co Dublin ?

He will not be back creeping around wexford again until he wants more of your votes and to my dismay he will problem get some of them.

Didn't he flog off his winery and villa to his brother for a euro at the same time he was refusing to pay his taxes?

A very generous man, Mick.

Eugene Norman

YFlyer wrote: »

Government is a reflection of society.

In reality this puts the cost on the poor (who have to compete for social housing or rent with refugees fleeing France) and on the taxpayer. Not the people who could put refugees up in their houses.

longshanks

YFlyer wrote: »

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Tut, tut. Asking others to put their money where there mouth is. Don't you know it's the guberment's responsibility?

Government is a reflection o

YFlyer wrote: »

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Tut, tut. Asking others to put their money where there mouth is. Don't you know it's the guberment's responsibility?

Government is a reflection of society.

Not really. Only certain types put themselves forward for government. Namely those with a neck like a jockeys bollox, hardly reflective of all society.

YFlyer

Mongfinder General wrote: »

So why isn't society a reflection of government?

It is. You have to take the good and the bad.

ThinkProgress

longshanks wrote: »

Not really. Only certain types put themselves forward for government. Namely those with a neck like a jockeys bollox, hardly reflective of all society.

Many of the gobsh*tes that constantly sit around moaning about their government, would be just as useless and corrupt if they were in the same position... I've no doubt about that.

We produce these clowns by the truckload on this island. You could execute our entire dail tomorrow by firing squad, and we'd have a conveyor belt of suitable replacements in a heart beat! :P

The idea of "us" and "them" is laughable....

JoseWasntReady

thattequilagirl wrote: »

By whose definition?

I'm aware that refugees are meant to seek asylum in the first country I land in. I haven't seen any recognised body claim that if they move to a different country they are not refugees any more.

Do you have a link for that?

How are those in Calais refugees when they refuse to claim asylum or register with the French authorities? They're not refugees. They're illegals who want to move to the UK.

Being from the developing world and wanting to move to the west doesn't automatically mean that one is a refugee.

Garzard

sdanseo wrote: »

Exactly. I have no issue with refugees in general. But this matter of trying to get into the UK is ridiculous. They should be happy with Macedonia compare to what they've come from.

Getting out of Syria = Need
Cherry picking what nice country you want to go and acting like an animal while trying to get there = Greed

I can't say I have any sympathy for these people. They've brought nothing but problems wherever they've arrived en masse in Europe.

JoseWasntReady

Garzard wrote: »

I can't say I have any sympathy for these people. They've brought nothing but problems wherever they've arrived en masse in Europe.

The majority of refugees and migrants will cause no problems and get on with their life. Those in Calais are illegal immigrants and a danger to truckers and the local residents. They need to go.

Let Daly, Wallace and the immigration lawyer spend a week working the Calais route. They'll soon change their tune.