Incident at Roscommon hotel (asylum seekers)

Mad_maxx

Feisar wrote: »

Graces, with all respect dumping a large number of people in a small town will lead to trouble. There's bugger all facilities in these places. Sure during the boom people from Dublin sold their homes and moved to places like Mullingar and Rochfordbridge, this caused a certain element of them and us type mentallity, "bloody Dubs coming down here and causing trouble". And them fellow spud pickers, not a load of easily distingushable people.
It's probably the whole parish thing and outsiders are bad.

People in much of rural Ireland distrust folk from the next parish over, nevermind Syria

Fann Linn

€1.6 million paid to one private provider since Sept 2018 for DP services by the govt.
Nice money to be made in refugee/asylum industry.

1874

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Where exactly, thanks.

I am guessing the settlements are very small and well cared for. No trouble or any tossing of rubbish or dogs let loose or whatever. Can you confirm?

The local residents would not tolerate anything other than that really. Do you recall the residents in Glenamuck Cottages who totally objected to a temporary halting site outside their homes after the major fire?

Never heard a word about that afterwards. Did you? If that kind of objection was anywhere else there would be hell to pay from the media.

But because most of the media heads live in so called nice areas they never said a word about it.

Well, there is one location near Sandyford, travelling south bound on the M50, looking across the motorway, you used to routinely see piles of rubbish over their back wall, havent passed that way in a while, that may even have been the Glenamuck/Carrickmines location.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The usa is the only country which should be taking in any syrians as they were the ones who destabilised that entire region.

Well and their Allies, the Saudi's, who are strangely but unsuprisingly in a kind of alliance with another heavily miltarised country there, presented as some sort of Bulwark to Iran. So Saudi, and one of the other gulf states too, was involved in funding and supplying military equipment for ISIS that prolonged the Syrian conflict and made it more brutal and devastating.


So how many people have the Saudi's taken in or the other rich gulf states? very few Id say other than possibly a token number, because they funded that war.
Personally I think Saudi could come a cropper with internal problems in the future, they have been a bit quiet since they murdered that journalist and the brutal war they waged/are waging against Yemen that has mostly gone unmentioned since that too. I think they are on something of a goodwill effort to rebuild their image what with Mariah Carey singing it up.
I consider their image irreparable, after an unnecessary war and famine in Yemen because the Saudis see themselves as needing to be opponents of Iran.

If the money spent by them on their wars to further their own ideology and to extend their power over neighboring regions wasnt wasted it could be used to improve their image by helping to build in the Middle east instead of destroy.
The reason why AS are coming here is at least in part an outcome of the actions of their own Muslim brothers and sisters. Although I dont think its that simple, its as the case here but more extreme, its based on the actions of the wealthy countries and the small number of wealthy families and connected people to further their own aims.

Grayson

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The usa is the only country which should be taking in any syrians as they were the ones who destabilised that entire region.

Them and climate change. The syrian revolution was caused by many rural families moving to cities as a direct result of climate change.

And although you could argue that the USA and its allies have a greater moral obligation to help the syrian people, that doesn't mean we don't. For example if you see someone that's knocked down by a car you can't say that you have no moral obligation to help and we should not help because it's the obligation of the person in the car. The right thing to do is to help the person that's been knocked down.

1874

Grayson wrote: »

Them and climate change. The syrian revolution was caused by many rural families moving to cities as a direct result of climate change.

And although you could argue that the USA and its allies have a greater moral obligation to help the syrian people, that doesn't mean we don't. For example if you see someone that's knocked down by a car you can't say that you have no moral obligation to help and we should not help because it's the obligation of the person in the car. The right thing to do is to help the person that's been knocked down.

I think climate change played a part and that may have helped drive costs up, but costs can be manipulated too in a global economy when foodstuffs costs increase, its good way to sow dissent and discord.
In a global economy, its more likely that problems occurring ordinarily in one region can be felt throughout the world, its a frightening vision of what may come to pass.
Ive read there are 30days of food stocks available at anyone time and the rest of future requirements is in production/(growth) and delivery

Mad_maxx

Grayson wrote: »

Them and climate change. The syrian revolution was caused by many rural families moving to cities as a direct result of climate change.

And although you could argue that the USA and its allies have a greater moral obligation to help the syrian people, that doesn't mean we don't. For example if you see someone that's knocked down by a car you can't say that you have no moral obligation to help and we should not help because it's the obligation of the person in the car. The right thing to do is to help the person that's been knocked down.

If we present ourselves as happy to take in refugees, we will become a mecca, we cannot allow that to happen

4068ac1elhodqr

Fr. Hiroshima Twinkie wrote: »

Lest we forget: a recent poll (pbs.twimg.com/media/Dwd_2eJW0AEvOwY.jpg) showed that immigration is of concern for a whopping 2.2% of the Irish public!

Kind of puts into perspective the pages and pages of """legitimate""" concerns about immigrants and asylum seekers here....

....Just think about it.

You mean it's the 6th most item of concern? (in that small poll). Ahead of tax, crime, welfare, equality, recession, childcare, corruption concerns an so on...

The other top 3 are all impacted by migration. In fact Brexit itself was (primarily) caused by mass migration, hence the 52% voted to leave, even well knowing that their wallets would be lighter as a result.

People are happy for """legitimate""" AS, but it's very difficult to assess if someone travelling across (multiple safe countries in the EU, even Turkey) with no ID, to reach Calais, London or Dublin are all legitimate.

People are also happy for 'immigration via diversity' (the US-DV visa model is a good example). But planting 20%+ of a small towns total population, all from a specific singlular culture isn't exactly 'diversity', if anything it's the opposite.

Had they been 100 people from 100 different countries, it would be briliant, just think of the vast cultural benefits. It would also equate to near immediate integration, out of neccessity.

Just think about that.

maccored

this must be the reason

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2019/01/11/nation-so-racist-asylum-hotels-spontaneously-combusting-of-own-accord/

Grayson

Mad_maxx wrote: »

If we present ourselves as happy to take in refugees, we will become a mecca, we cannot allow that to happen

That's a separate moral argument.

The first question is should we help. The second and third questions are who specifically do we help and how much can we help.

Simply saying we can't help anyone because in the future people we don't know might expect us to do something is not a valid argument. If you use it then we should never do anything right for anyone at all.

bear in mind that I'm looking at this strictly from a logical and moral/ethical point of view. It's something that I've studied a lot.

Likewise an argument you see here sometimes is that countries like saudi are doing nothing, so why should we. The simple answer is that one country ignoring their obligations does not remove our obligation. The same as the example above, seeing one person walk past a hit and run victim doesn't mean that it's perfectly ok for you to.

As for who to help, that's a separate argument. There's plenty of discussion about how we should review applicants. Should we give priority to families etc.

And of course there's a question of how many. 5 people or 500k? I think most people would agree that both figures are ridiculous but there is a question about how many we can physically take and what the cost is.

That's all separate from the first argument which is "should we help people" and i can't see any moral argument against that which makes sense.

Snow Garden

Fr. Hiroshima Twinkie wrote: »

Lest we forget: a recent poll (pbs.twimg.com/media/Dwd_2eJW0AEvOwY.jpg) showed that immigration is of concern for a whopping 2.2% of the Irish public!

Kind of puts into perspective the pages and pages of """legitimate""" concerns about immigrants and asylum seekers here.

Great point. I would count myself in the 2%.

I much prefer the multicultural Ireland we have today when compared with the inbred, backward, priest fearing society of the 20s-80s.

tretorn

I would much prefer to live under the priest fearing society of old than live under a Muslim cleric.

The leader of Hungary is right, let one Muslim in for every Irish child born and I mean that child born to a native Irish woman not a woman born in Somalia who becomes a New Irish. The problem with Muslim immigration is the amount that you end up within a couple of decades, they have very big families and they have children very young. In some parts of Europe Muslims have become so large in numbers they have created No go areas for non Muslims. They impose sharia law on their communities and basically live outside the secular law of their host country.

I really dont want to see that happening here but unfortuneately it already is. Tyrellstown in West Dublin is going to be a huge ghetto area when the numbers of non national children grow into their late teens. The powers that be dont care because they arent looking for votes in Tyrellstown and nothing that happens there impacts on anyone living in Clontarfor Sutton or Howth or Foxrock or Donnybrook.

Kivaro

Fr. Hiroshima Twinkie wrote: »

Lest we forget: a recent poll (pbs.twimg.com/media/Dwd_2eJW0AEvOwY.jpg) showed that immigration is of concern for a whopping 2.2% of the Irish public!

I'll tell you what; let's have a referendum on non-EU economic migration into Ireland or a referendum for changes to the existing asylum process. This is something that will never happen because the liberal government chiefs have their future jobs in Brussels to consider, but one could presume it would be around the same or more as the 2004 referendum to stop Nigerians and other similar "guests" having anchor babies in Ireland and then claiming citizenship.
>80% I'd imagine for a stop to non-EU migration and/or changes to the asylum process and the multiple appeals (and the corresponding substantial financial burden on tax payers).

And another thing. It's funny (almost) when the pro-open-border types talk about asylum seekers, they keep referencing Syrians. There is a high probability that Syrians would be a tiny minority housed in the Roscommon hotel. More than likely, you'll have North Africans, Western Africans, and "asylum seekers" from Pakistan, Georgia (most applicants in 2018), Albania etc. However, that won't stop the open-border proponents to keep using Syrians as the stereotypical asylum seeker. They know it's not true but that does not stop them.

There was a significant rise in the number of asylum seekers seeking "refuge" in Ireland in 2018. Curiously, they bypassed many other safe countries before arriving to our fair Isle. If you are wondering why? Then one could just look at our world-class welfare state that we have here. And with Billions of euros to be spent on new social housing units in the next few years, they get extremely high payments on welfare plus a new home.
As I said before, this country is bonkers.

Odhinn

tretorn wrote: »

I would much prefer to live under the priest fearing society of old than live under a Muslim cleric.

The leader of Hungary is right, let one Muslim in for every Irish child born and I mean that child born to a native Irish woman not a woman born in Somalia who becomes a New Irish. The problem with Muslim immigration is the amount that you end up within a couple of decades, they have very big families and they have children very young. In some parts of Europe Muslims have become so large in numbers they have created No go areas for non Muslims. They impose sharia law on their communities and basically live outside the secular law of their host country.

I really dont want to see that happening here but unfortuneately it already is. Tyrellstown in West Dublin is going to be a huge ghetto area when the numbers of non national childrengrow into their late teens. The powers that be dont care because they arent looking for votes in Tyrellstown and nothing that happens there impacts on anyone living in Clontarfor Sutton or Howth or Foxrock or Donnybrook.

Second and third generation have families in similar size to local norms.





You may find this hard to believe, but a lot of those children are irish.

Odhinn

Kivaro wrote: »

I'll tell you what; let's have a referendum on non-EU economic migration into Ireland or a referendum for changes to the existing asylum process. This is something that will never happen because the liberal government chiefs have their future jobs in Brussels to consider, but one could presume it would be around the same or more as the 2004 referendum to stop Nigerians and other similar "guests" having anchor babies in Ireland and then claiming citizenship.
>80% I'd imagine for a stop to non-EU migration and/or changes to the asylum process and the multiple appeals (and the corresponding substantial financial burden on tax payers).

And another thing. It's funny (almost) when the pro-open-border types talk about asylum seekers, they keep referencing Syrians. There is a high probability that Syrians would be a tiny minority housed in the Roscommon hotel. More than likely, you'll have North Africans, Western Africans, and "asylum seekers" from Pakistan, Georgia (most applicants in 2018), Albania etc. However, that won't stop the open-border proponents to keep using Syrians as the stereotypical asylum seeker. They know it's not true but that does not stop them.

There was a significant rise in the number of asylum seekers seeking "refuge" in Ireland in 2018. Curiously, they bypassed many other safe countries before arriving to our fair Isle. If you are wondering why? Then one could just look at our world-class welfare state that we have here. And with Billions of euros to be spent on new social housing units in the next few years, they get extremely high payments on welfare plus a new home.
As I said before, this country is bonkers.

Why the quotes in relation to Pakistan?

tretorn

Most are the children of people who came here illegally and then stayed so long they were granted asylum. If I had my way these people would be processed within days in Dublin Airport and put back on the airlines who brought them here, the return flights home to be charged to the carrier.

Second and third generation Muslims in many parts of Europe caused most of the terrorism and they managed to bring entire countries to their knees. They are also way over represented in sexual crime statistics in every country they land in including Ireland and they see rape and sexual assault of women who dare to dress as they like as inconsequential. In their tiny little backward brains they think the women want to be sexually assaulted and even if they dont they were asking for it anyway.

Second and third generation Muslims do not have less than two children each which is the norm for a lot of European countries, like the travellers the women are married off early and families started by the age of eighteen and nineteen. They dont marry outside their culture because European women wont accept being treated like chattels so very little integration takes place even with muslims resident in European countries for decades.

Odhinn

tretorn wrote: »

...........
Second and third generation Muslims do not have less than two children each which is the norm for a lot of European countries, ..............

So you agree with me then.

4068ac1elhodqr

Snow Garden wrote: »

I much prefer the multicultural Ireland we have today when compared with the inbred, backward, priest fearing society of the 20s-80s.

The MC-Ire today you enjoy is due to the slow and gradual programe of the EU27 (European) Project.

Guess this incident may have caused issues as
i) It isn't gradual/natural to +20-30% of a small towns population overnight.
ii) It isn't anything European, it's a mix of non-eu economic migration mixed with some genuine cases.
iiI) It isn't multi-cultural, in fact it's 'mono-culture' added to anther 'small rural mono-ish culture'.

tretorn

Odhinn wrote: »

So you agree with me then.

No, I dont agree with you.

I know a few Muslim families and in each of the families there are six children.

The girls are kept under tight control from age twelve, they go to school and thats about it. They dont mix with Irish girls because from twelve onwards the sexes tend to socialise together. The Muslims girls as soon as they got to eighteen were sent to Libya to be married and they have two or three children by aged twenty two. The husbands are picked out for them and as a young woman you have no choice but to obey your father. If you dont and you are lucky your family will never talk to you again, you could on the other hand find yourself being murdered in an honour killing by male relatives and none of your community will go to the Police Authorities if this happens. And on and on it goes and some fools here think for some reason the Irish experience will be different.

4068ac1elhodqr

Kivaro wrote: »

I'll tell you what; let's have a referendum on non-EU economic migration into Ireland or a referendum for changes to the existing asylum process. .

This has sort of happened in other countries, not via referendum, but regular elections results.

e.g. Italy's democratic elections voted in two new parties, they put an 'overnight stop order' on all people trafficing operations. Spain has now overtaken them as the route of choice.

e.g. But in Spain, parties such as Vox has increased their election performance by triple percentages in some regions.

e.g. Germany, the people decided that Merkel will never weild as much power again as she once ever again.

e.g. Sweden, the left SD had their worst result in 100yrs and Prime Minister Stefan Löfven lost a vote of no-confidence.

e.g. UK: Brexit, the 1st country to actually leave the EU, even knowing it will face food shortages, travel issues, and lighter wallets.

Odhinn

tretorn wrote: »

No, I dont agree with you.

I know a few Muslim families and in each of the families there are six children..

You seem to be mistaking your non-systematic anecdotal observations with researched fact


https://www.demographic-research.org...6/45/36-45.pdf


https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_402LHRB.pdf

tretorn

I really really hope we dont see an upsurge in asylum seekers once Britain leaves the UK.

I get no sense that our Government is preparing for this happening but I strongly suspect we are going to see an explosion.

We have nurses already saying they cant cope with the public hospital system, we simply dont have capacity for hundreds, maybe thousands of North Africans.

Galwayguy35

I thought it was Syrians we were supposed to be taking in but according to the news yesterday most of the ones that were going to Roscommon were from North Africa.

Would be interesting to know how many of them are young men as well, I'd suggest quite a few if they are African.

As for that crustie they interviewed, she hadn't a clue what she was trying to say rambling on about DP but had now solution herself.

You know it's bad when Keelan Shanley, someone who wouldn't be someone who could be ever accused of leaning to the right cuts her off.

Of course the scruffy crustie would never admit that the reason most of them are in DP for so long is they launch appeal after appeal at taxpayers expense and this can go on for years on end.

Grayson

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I thought it was Syrians we were supposed to be taking in but according to the news yesterday most of the ones that were going to Roscommon were from North Africa.

Would be interesting to know how many of them are young men as well, I'd suggest quite a few if they are African.

As for that crustie they interviewed, she hadn't a clue what she was trying to say rambling on about DP but had now solution herself.

You know it's bad when Keelan Shanley, someone who wouldn't be someone who could be ever accused of leaning to the right cuts her off.

Of course the scruffy crustie would never admit that the reason most of them are in DP for so long is they launch appeal after appeal at taxpayers expense and this can go on for years on end.

Because most africans are young men? That sentence doesn't make any sense. And is it bad that they are men (If they are. I assume at least some are)?

tretorn

Odhinn wrote: »

You seem to be mistaking your non-systematic anecdotal observations with researched fact


https://www.demographic-research.org...6/45/36-45.pdf


https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_402LHRB.pdf

I dont believe any of that research, its mostly done by liberals NGOs feeding off the trough of public money being spent on asylum seekers.

Most countries have no idea of how many non nationals there are within their borders, why would those working under the radar answer census forms, why would men who have two or three wives admit this to authorities. Many of these non nationals have children with two or three different women, it all adds up and anyone in Dublin city centre regularly would know the estimates for the number of non nationals is grossly under estimated.

And . yes, it is bad if we are letting thousands and thousands of young men who have basically been living in jungles arrive here, what do you think will happen if hundreds of young unemployed men congregate in a small area, maybe take a trip to Muslim ghettoes in Brussels, you might learn something.

Church on Tuesday

Grayson wrote: »

Them and climate change. The syrian revolution was caused by many rural families moving to cities as a direct result of climate change.

And although you could argue that the USA and its allies have a greater moral obligation to help the syrian people, that doesn't mean we don't. For example if you see someone that's knocked down by a car you can't say that you have no moral obligation to help and we should not help because it's the obligation of the person in the car. The right thing to do is to help the person that's been knocked down.

You're wasting your time trying to argue with racists.

With these kinds of people, anyone who is in in the slightest way different is automatically deemed untrustworthy/dangerous. It reflects a certain kind of insecurity and I've seen this nonsense played out in real life a thousand times before in work and social situations and it never ending well for the instigators.

It's very insidious all the same though, of course it will be dressed up as having concern for what you may call "globalization" but at the end of the day it's anything but.

If we've got to the stage where we can't or won't offer asylum to people whose lives have been destroyed by conflict, kids a lot of them, then we may as well pack it in folks.

We also are doing a disservice to the memory to our own victims of plight in the Famine years, because believe me, the Americans and others were not happy to see us come over to start a new life or just to survive.

We were reviled. Remember that. And not all of us were saints either.

This thread has become an angry insular echo chamber at this stage.

Have at it for all I care really.

Odhinn

tretorn wrote: »

I dont believe any of that research, its mostly done by liberals NGOs feeding off the trough of public money being spent on asylum seekers.

Dear o dear.

tretorn wrote: »

Most countries have no idea of how many non nationals there are within their borders, why would those working under the radar answer census forms, why would men who have two or three wives admit this to authorities. Many of these non nationals have children with two or three different women, it all adds up and anyone in Dublin city centre regularly would know the estimates for the number of non nationals is grossly under estimated.

Only about 4% in total of muslims world wide engage in polygamy. Another fact you might want to label and dismiss. And again, you're mistaking your anecdotal nonsense for genuine researched facts.

OneEightSeven

Odhinn wrote: »

Second and third generation have families in similar size to local norms.

This comment ignores the fact that fresh waves of Muslim immigrants will still have higher brithrates than native English. All population projections show the Muslim population in the UK increasing, when we should be decreasing it because Muslims are invasive.

You may find this hard to believe, but a lot of those children are irish.

You may find this difficult to understand, but you are not automatically granted citizenship by being born here and most of those children are dual citizens. Unlike most Irish, they can have their citizenship revoked and some of them don't even identity as Irish.

I was on RTE News' Facebook page last year, when I saw banned Boards.ie user Seaneh lecturing an African girl living in Irish on her nationality. She said she doesn't feel Irish but he was telling her she is. He basically shoving Irishness down her throat being his usual condescending self too. The vast majority of Africans arrived here as bogus asylum seekers and stayed here because of weak immigration control. Their Irishness is very superficial.

It's disappointing to Europeans hand out nationality like a free newspaper. It's the reason why we have to install anti-terror barriers on Grafton Street, Heanty sterrt and the UK's airports are armed to the teeth.

Del.Monte

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

You're wasting your time trying to argue with racists.

With these kinds of people, anyone who is in in the slightest way different is automatically deemed untrustworthy/dangerous. It reflects a certain lack of insecurity and I've seen this nonsense played out in real life a thousand times before in work and social situations and it never ending well for the instigators.

It's very insidious all the same though, of course it will be dressed up as having concern for what you may call "globalization" but at the end of the day it's anything but.

If we've got to the stage where we can't or won't offer asylum to people whose lives have been destroyed by conflict, kids a lot of them, then we may as well pack it in folks.

We also are doing a disservice to the memory to our own victims of plight in the Famine years, because believe me, the Americans and others were not happy to see us come over to start a new life or just to survive.

We were reviled. Remember that. And not all of us were saints either.

This thread has become an angry insular echo chamber at this stage.

Have at it for all I care really.

The irony. :rolleyes:

Odhinn

OneEightSeven wrote: »

This comment ignores the fact that fresh waves of Muslim immigrants will still have higher brithrates than native English. All population projections show the Muslim population in the UK increasing, when we should be decreasing it because Muslims are invasive.

First generation yes, the next generations less, gradually matching the average for the country.


Speaking about muslims being "invasive" doesn't do you any favours.

tretorn

4% of the huge number of Muslims in a colossal number.

Again I dont believe any of your statistics.

I see whats happening in our country with my own eyes and its not good.

Officially 12 % of the country is now non national but yet 33% of the numbers on the public housing lists are non nationals. This is before Brexit actually happens and now Italy has joined the Eastern European countries in saying NO to asylum seekers. Spain will be next and Germany has already taken its fair share. Are we to be the dumping ground now that other stronger countries are closing their doors.