Migration Megathread

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

It was just the usual labyrinthine discussion that involved those in favor of illegal immigration saying that there was nothing to see here, and that pointing out what is clearly a large base of fraudulent drivers is merely being racist. When evidence showing the endemic nature of the sham is shown, those in favor of illegal immigration sidle off, waiting for the next opportunity to call people racists.

I'm not saying that there isn't racist attitudes among those who are against illegal immigration. It would be surprising if there wasn't. I'm saying that those in favor of illegal immigration are willing to turn a blind eye to illegal activities because it suits their motives. Being hypocritical I suppose I could say that I am also willing to turn a blind eye to illegal activities in a local sense, but in my defense I can say that I don't think there's much value in reporting an individual who is working illegally when the problem is at a far higher level.

It's also nothing really to do with Islam, although the fact that Islam isn't an indigenous religion to any of the EU countries gives it a tenuous relevance to a conversation about immigration.

Who's in favour of illegal immigration? Find me one person posting in this thread that's in favour of illegal immigration.

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you ok with your funding of the criminal underworld?

Funny, was going to ask again if you (or more so) Midlife, we're cool with it.

Midlife wrote: »

What's the issue at hand?
That people desparate to come to this country till try and use the legal loopholes and areas where there's lack of oversightto gain entry and find employment?

I'd fully support operations such as Vantage.

Others it seems, could care less about issues of thousands of sham marriges of grooms mainly from 4 specific Asian countries, hundred of illegal workers, millions into the underworld, all of which puts the public at large at risk.

Let's only hope the authorities keep up the good work to stop these criminals, and aid public safety. Carry on.

Timberrrrrrrr

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Funny, was going to ask again if you (or more so) Midlife, we're cool with it.

So you're not going to answer the question?

I'd fully support operations such as Vantage.

Others it seems, could care less about issues of thousands of sham marriges of grooms mainly from 4 specific Asian countries, hundred of illegal workers, millions into the underworld, all of which puts the public at large at risk.

Let's only hope the authorities keep up the good work to stop these criminals, and aid public safety. Carry on.

Reminds me of several friends who went to the states in the 80's/90's.

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you're not going to answer the question?

Clearly I don't actually need to, as stated already I do support operation Vantage, to stop crimianls (unlike others whom don't find it an 'isssue').

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Reminds me of several friends who went to the states in the 80's/90's.

So you're going to revert to whataboutery from 40yrs ago?
Oh dear, please try harder: score 1/10.

Timberrrrrrrr

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Clearly I don't actually need to, as stated already I do support operation Vantage, to stop crimianls (unlike others whom don't find it an 'isssue').

That wasn't my question, you seem to have dodged or missed it completely,

Here it is again

Are you ok with your funding of the criminal underworld?

So you're going to revert to whataboutery from 40yrs ago?
Oh dear, please try harder: score 1/10.

Just pointing out that this kind 9f thing has gone on for decades and will continue to go on. I'm not saying its right I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not just brown people from poor countries who take advantage of the system.

ancapailldorcha

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Oh dear, please try harder: score 1/10.

Be civil please.

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you ok with your funding of the criminal underworld?

I (very) clearly don't support it, nor do I fund it.

More to the point, do you, and please also clearly state if you fully 100% support 'operation Vantage', because one could get the impression you mightn't, please clarify?

'Because some people did it 40yrs ago' really doesn't make it any more acceptable in my book, whataboutery isn't an excuse for two wrongs to make a right.

Timberrrrrrrr

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

I (very) clearly don't support it, nor do I fund it.

If you have gone into a bar or club in the last 20 years or so then you clearly have and still do. Its well known that Many security companies that supply doorstaff are run by/employ criminals.

More to the point, do you, and please also clearly state if you fully 100% support 'operation Vantage', because one could get the impression you mightn't, please clarify?

I support all actions by the authorities that help catch/convict criminals. Not sure why you would think i don't.

'Because some people did it 40yrs ago' really doesn't make it any more acceptable in my book, whataboutery isn't an excuse for two wrongs to make a right.

No one has said it was right.

4068ac1elhodqr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If you have gone into a bar or club in the last 20 years or so then you clearly have and still do. Its well known that Many security companies that supply doorstaff are run by/employ criminals.

I know the folks at my local clubs, they all have valid licences (as required), and are all fine upstanding citizens. So clearly, you can retract that claim, frankly do find it an insulting lazy generalisation against that employment sector.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I support all actions by the authorities that help catch/convict criminals. Not sure why you would think i don't.

So why even revert to the whataboutery?

Am sure everyone is relieved to hear you (and hopefully everyone else), fully support and even offer great praise, for the recent operation’s successful actions directly stoppping:

- 180 non-EU nationals obtaining taxi licences, despite having no legal status in Ireland (many using false documents, and some with previous convictions).
- Nulling 2,100 'sham marriges' (mostly Asian 'grooms'), from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.
- Another 20m euro from reaching criminals gangs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No one has said it was right.

So why even belittle it, and revert to the whataboutery, of something that might have happened 40yrs ago. Whataboutery has no place to excuse crime or anything else otherwise.

Midlife

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

I know the folks at my local clubs, they all have valid licences (as required), and are all fine upstanding citizens. So clearly, you can retract that claim, frankly do find it an insulting lazy generalisation against that employment sector.



So why even revert to the whataboutery?

Am sure everyone is relieved to hear you (and hopefully everyone else), fully support and even offer great praise, for the recent operation’s successful actions directly stoppping:

- 180 non-EU nationals obtaining taxi licences, despite having no legal status in Ireland (many using false documents, and some with previous convictions).
- Nulling 2,100 'sham marriges' (mostly Asian 'grooms'), from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.
- Another 20m euro from reaching criminals gangs



So why even belittle it, and revert to the whataboutery, of something that might have happened 40yrs ago. Whataboutery has no place to excuse crime or anything else otherwise.

Do you think the ethnicity or religion of the people involved had anything to do with these crimes?

James Brown

Midlife wrote: »

Do you think the ethnicity or religion of the people involved had anything to do with these crimes?

Does someones background play a role in their behaviour? I would say certainly, very much so. I would say most if not all illegal immigrants aren't from Ireland. I would go so far as to suggest that most Islamic terrorists would be from a Muslim background.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

Who's in favour of illegal immigration? Find me one person posting in this thread that's in favour of illegal immigration.

Anyone who approves of people smuggling, anyone who sees nothing wrong in illegal workers or scams to stay in the country, those who attack eastern European governments because they are enforcing the Dublin regulation. Those people are really, really, really, really clearly in favor of illegal immigration. Really really. I don't think it can be overemphasized how plainly obvious this is.

Having said this, such people would probably prefer if such immigration were made legal, if the idea of visas were done away with, if the people smuggling cartels were actively supported through European funding, that the Dublin regulation was scrapped, if Irish citizenship could be simply applied for and approved without any hurdles.

I will say that your opposition to the 27th amendment (the anti-anchor babies referendum) was actually much more legitimate than some of your peers though (concern over Dáil authority over definition of citizenship).

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

...those who attack eastern European governments because they are enforcing the Dublin regulation.

Are you talking about the Dublin regulation, or are you talking about the imaginary version of the Dublin regulation that somehow imposes requirements on asylum seekers that exist nowhere in the text of said regulation?

Because a lot of people bleat on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how it's somehow logically impossible to claim asylum in the absence of direct flights, or how people in inflatable boats can automatically be dismissed as economic migrants, or whatever. In short, there's a great deal of shíte talked about the Dublin regulation by people who have clearly never read a single word of the regulation in question.

Now, I'd never dream of suggesting even for a second that you yourself were ignorant of the requirements imposed by the Dublin regulation, so perhaps you could clarify for me: exactly what form does this enforcement of which you speak take, and exactly why are the people of whom you speak critical of such enforcement?

AlPorter

Well, we can all mutually agree that illegal immigration is a bad thing. We obviously need to rigorously check anyone entering our country to ensure the safety and well-being of our citizens. Europe and Ireland is a safe zone and lets try our best to keep it that way!

The problem occurs with refugees at present. There is little to no information regarding who the refugees coming into Europe/Ireland are and they seem to be checked/interrogated less than those coming in via the legal route!

I think something has to change. It's an entirely different issue that a lot of these people don't speak English, so they can't correctly communicate with us and this forces them into further poverty in Ireland, in which they are more likely to commit crimes. Surely the solution would be to accommodate them somewhere safe in their own country, where they are surrounded with their own people, and will be much happier and better able to live their lives. It's not fair on us nor them.

AllForIt

Midlife wrote: »

Do you think the ethnicity or religion of the people involved had anything to do with these crimes?

Well, it's not that mad an idea. It certainly does apply when it comes to Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs.

AlPorter

AllForIt wrote: »

Well, it's not that mad an idea. It certainly does apply when it comes to Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs.

I do agree. There is some pretty frightening statistics that we're only just beginning to see from the UK in regards to Muslims committing disgusting crimes against children.

Midlife

Sorry lads,

The poster was talking about sham marraiges and fake licenses. I was, given the topic of the thread, asking if the ethnicity or religion of those involved had anything to do with it.

Midlife

AlPorter wrote: »

I think something has to change. It's an entirely different issue that a lot of these people don't speak English, so they can't correctly communicate with us and this forces them into further poverty in Ireland, in which they are more likely to commit crimes. Surely the solution would be to accommodate them somewhere safe in their own country, where they are surrounded with their own people, and will be much happier and better able to live their lives. It's not fair on us nor them.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

A couple of things though.

A person on unemployment in ireland is still in the richest cohert of people in the world. Will try to drag out the stat but it's top 10% or something. It's so worth it for so many people to try and get here by whatever means necessary.

I have a big problem with vilifying people for this as so many on boards seem to wish to do. As someone mentioned earlier, irish people had no problem doing it when the motivation was there for them.

If people had security and prosperity in their own country, they wouldn't want to move in the first place.

Addtionally, extremism (bar a few odd cults) doesn't take place in populations where there is security and prosperity.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Anyone who approves of people smuggling, anyone who sees nothing wrong in illegal workers or scams to stay in the country, those who attack eastern European governments because they are enforcing the Dublin regulation. Those people are really, really, really, really clearly in favor of illegal immigration. Really really. I don't think it can be overemphasized how plainly obvious this is.

I’ll ask again in another way so. Who on here approves of people smuggling, attacks Eastern European governments for enforcing the Dublin agreement?

I don’t see anyone, I may have missed it though.

Having said this, such people would probably prefer if such immigration were made legal, if the idea of visas were done away with, if the people smuggling cartels were actively supported through European funding, that the Dublin regulation was scrapped, if Irish citizenship could be simply applied for and approved without any hurdles.

I believe you’re creating a straw man here. Just because some people believe every asylum seeker deserves due process does not mean any they believe any of the above. I doubt anyone in he world believes smuggling cartels should be funded by Europe, it’s a ludicrous idea.

I will say that your opposition to the 27th amendment (the anti-anchor babies referendum) was actually much more legitimate than some of your peers though (concern over Dáil authority over definition of citizenship).

I’m sure it was, but I don’t see the relevance.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you talking about the Dublin regulation, or are you talking about the imaginary version of the Dublin regulation that somehow imposes requirements on asylum seekers that exist nowhere in the text of said regulation?

Now, I'd never dream of suggesting even for a second that you yourself were ignorant of the requirements imposed by the Dublin regulation, so perhaps you could clarify for me: exactly what form does this enforcement of which you speak take, and exactly why are the people of whom you speak critical of such enforcement?

This determines responsibility for looking after the migrants once they arrive on our [EU] shores – it requires asylum seekers to make their application in the first EU country they arrive in. That country is then responsible for accepting or rejecting their claim, and the seeker may not restart the process in another state.
Irish Times

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because a lot of people bleat on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how it's somehow logically impossible to claim asylum in the absence of direct flights, or how people in inflatable boats can automatically be dismissed as economic migrants, or whatever. In short, there's a great deal of shíte talked about the Dublin regulation by people who have clearly never read a single word of the regulation in question.

I would expect that those who pay several thousands of euro to people traffickers to cross several countries and use an inflatable for the purposes of crossing the Mediterranean are probably economic migrants, but that is a separate issue from the Dublin regulation.

Midlife wrote: »

I was, given the topic of the thread, asking if the ethnicity or religion of those involved had anything to do with it.

I agree with you that the OP and thread title are fundamentally flawed by binding together immigration and religion. It happens that most immigrants into the EU are probably Muslim, but that is because of proximity to the middle east and north Africa, and has absolutely nothing to do with the religion itself.

AlPorter

Midlife wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

A couple of things though.

A person on unemployment in ireland is still in the richest cohert of people in the world. Will try to drag out the stat but it's top 10% or something. It's so worth it for so many people to try and get here by whatever means necessary.

I have a big problem with vilifying people for this as so many on boards seem to wish to do. As someone mentioned earlier, irish people had no problem doing it when the motivation was there for them.

If people had security and prosperity in their own country, they wouldn't want to move in the first place.

Addtionally, extremism (bar a few odd cults) doesn't take place in populations where there is security and prosperity.

Yes, and it's our job to prevent these people coming into our country, as they do cause issues and creates slums. Ireland is a very small country, we need to be strict on immigration and we actually are. We're just making ridiculous exceptions for refugees.

If we want to make their lives better, we can do charitable acts in their own countries, but the solution is not allowing them because the poor people of Europe because "that's better for them". Even though it is better for them, it's terrible for us. We need to keep a distance from a culture which has hatred towards the west ingrained in its very core. If they are able to go through the legal route, then they've proven worth and value to us and therefore are welcome.

Midlife

AlPorter wrote: »

We need to keep a distance from a culture which has hatred towards the west ingrained in its very core. If they are able to go through the legal route, then they've proven worth and value to us and therefore are welcome.

Religion is wide open to interpretation.

The narrative of western agression towards the middle east and islamic peoples has a lot of evidence from the cursades onwards.

It's both real agression, and a good victim card to play for people without much to look forward to.

In short a pissed off agressive young man in Pakistan or Afghanistan can easily find a lot of reasons to make the West a subject of his agression.

I don't believe it's hardwired into Islam.

AlPorter

Midlife wrote: »

Religion is wide open to interpretation.

The narrative of western agression towards the middle east and islamic peoples has a lot of evidence from the cursades onwards.

It's both real agression, and a good victim card to play for people without much to look forward to.

In short a pissed off agressive young man in Pakistan or Afghanistan can easily find a lot of reasons to make the West a subject of his agression.

I don't believe it's hardwired into Islam.

I didn't say it was hardwired into Islam, I did however say it was ingrained into the culture. There is a difference there, but of course you can equate some of that hated from some of the verses in the Quran I'm sure. Regardless, whether they hate Western culture because of the things we did to them in the past, or for other reasons, it's very clear to me that we don't exactly mix right.

If they want to live here, and come in through the legal route then they're fine.

But imagine you hate the West, and then you have a 'civil war' of sorts, and seek refuge. Suddenly you find yourself immersed in the culture you once hated, and for a lot this is too much and they quickly turn to radicalism.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

...it requires asylum seekers to make their application in the first EU country they arrive in.

No, it doesn't. Don't link a newspaper article in support of your claim; quote the Regulation.

I'm going to make an assertion, and it's up to you to disprove it with reference to the text of the Regulation itself:

The Dublin Regulation imposes no requirements whatsoever on asylum seekers. It imposes obligations on the Union and its member states; it grants rights to applicants.

If I'm wrong, quote the relevant provision from the Regulation. It's only 29 pages; it shouldn't be hard to find.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Don't link a newspaper article in support of your claim; quote the Regulation.

Sure.

Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in Article 22(3) of this Regulation, including the data referred to in Regulation (EU) No 603/2013, that an applicant has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air having come from a third country, the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for international protection.

Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person

I know that's not the original Dublin regulation, but the legislation relating to the enforcement of the Dublin regulation has been repealed several times, and that is the current legal framework within which it is set. All prior legal implementations have text that is similar to the above though.


Or, to put it in the words of the European Commission

[the Dublin regulation] establishes the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application based primarily on the first point of irregular entry.
European Commission

I know the opinion of journalists isn't good enough for you, not sure about the European Commission.

So are you going to retract your attacks on Eastern European countries (such as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary) for upholding the Dublin regulation? You are free to state a belief that the law should be changed, as you have done in relation to our national law.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sure.



Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person

I know that's not the original Dublin regulation, but the legislation relating to the enforcement of the Dublin regulation has been repealed several times, and that is the current legal framework within which it is set. All prior legal implementations have text that is similar to the above though.


Or, to put it in the words of the European Commission

[the Dublin regulation] establishes the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application based primarily on the first point of irregular entry.
European Commission

I know the opinion of journalists isn't good enough for you, not sure about the European Commission.

So are you going to retract your attacks on Eastern European countries (such as Poland, Slovakia, Hungary) for upholding the Dublin regulation? You are free to state a belief that the law should be changed, as you have done in relation to our national law.

So yeah, the member states. This doesn’t ask the question Oscar asked.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

So yeah, the member states. This doesn’t ask the question Oscar asked.

Sates are always responsible to uphold laws. Show me a country where it is the duty of civilians to enforce laws.

The conversation started with oscarbravo taking exception with the idea that eastern European countries are enforcing the Dublin regulation.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

The conversation started with oscarbravo taking exception with the idea that eastern European countries are enforcing the Dublin regulation.

No; the conversation started with me taking exception to your willful misrepresentation of the Dublin Regulation.

As expected, you have been unable to back up your assertion that the Dublin Regulation imposes any requirements on asylum seekers. You've done a lot of hand-waving to try to justify your misrepresentation, telling us what you believe the Regulation means, but that's just a long-winded way of refusing to accept that you're saying something that's just not true.

Once again: the Dublin Regulation imposes no requirements whatsoever on asylum seekers, and any claim that it does is, frankly, an agenda-driven lie.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

No; the conversation started with me taking exception to your willful misrepresentation of the Dublin Regulation.

Poor memory is excusable. Not bothering to go back a single page in the thread, less so.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Anyone who approves of people smuggling, anyone who sees nothing wrong in illegal workers or scams to stay in the country, those who attack eastern European governments because they are enforcing the Dublin regulation. Those people are really, really, really, really clearly in favor of illegal immigration. Really really. I don't think it can be overemphasized how plainly obvious this is.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you talking about the Dublin regulation, or are you talking about the imaginary version of the Dublin regulation that somehow imposes requirements on asylum seekers that exist nowhere in the text of said regulation?

Now that your memory is refreshed, I will ask whether you support the eastern European governments, who are clearly enforcing existing legislation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

As expected, you have been unable to back up your assertion that the Dublin Regulation imposes any requirements on asylum seekers.

I never did any such thing. I did quote an Irish Times journalist, whose opinion you aren't interested in anyway, so clearly the quote is neither here nor there. Furthermore it is irrelevant to say that the onus does not lie on the immigrant. It is as ridiculous as saying that there is no requirement in relevant legislation for thieves to report to a police station, merely a requirement for police to uphold the law in relation to theft.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've done a lot of hand-waving to try to justify your misrepresentation, telling us what you believe the Regulation means, but that's just a long-winded way of refusing to accept that you're saying something that's just not true.

You are free to be candid about your opposition to the legislation. You are free to take up an honest disposition on the matter.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

I never did any such thing.

Yes, you did. While you were trawling through my posts, you seem to have missed this one of yours:

RandomName2 wrote: »

...it requires asylum seekers to make their application in the first EU country they arrive in.

It requires no such thing. You can jump through whatever rhetorical hoops make you feel better about being wrong, but the Regulation imposes no requirements whatsoever on asylum seekers. It doesn't matter how much you want obligations on member states to magically morph into obligations on asylum seekers.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I did quote an Irish Times journalist, whose opinion you aren't interested in anyway...

It's not a question of not being interested in his opinion. Quoting someone who's wrong in support of your beliefs just makes both of you wrong.

Furthermore it is irrelevant to say that the onus does not lie on the immigrant.

It's only irrelevant if you're more interested in your own unsupported beliefs than in the facts. If you want to claim that there's an onus on asylum seekers, quote the provision of the Regulation that creates such an onus.

It is as ridiculous as saying that there is no requirement in relevant legislation for thieves to report to a police station, merely a requirement for police to uphold the law in relation to theft.

Conflating asylum seekers with criminals? Classy.

You are free to be candid about your opposition to the legislation.

I'm not opposed to the legislation. I'm opposed to people lying about it.