Pandemic Care Workers set for Deportation from Ireland

s1ippy

WrenBoy wrote: »

Do I think being Irish means I have a right to live in Ireland ? Yes

Maybe you shouldn't be entitled to live here unless you match up to the standards set by the people on this thread.

Because apparently being a valuable employee in a sector that badly needs any competent staff it can get isn't enough of a reason to put off deporting this woman.

Gervais08 wrote: »

Plus leave off with the racist accusations - it’s so lame now.

Yeah it really touches a nerve with some alright. Probably insecurity about their inadequacy.

Gervais08

s1ippy wrote: »

Maybe you shouldn't be entitled to live here unless you match up to the standards set by the people on this thread.

Because apparently being a valuable employee in a sector that badly needs any competent staff it can get isn't enough of a reason to put off deporting this woman.


Yeah it really touches a nerve with some alright. Probably insecurity about their inadequacy.

No because a) an accusation with no proof is wrong and b) it dilutes genuine racist behaviour.

Gatling

s1ippy wrote: »

Persecution for your sexuality is one of the grounds upon which asylum is granted.

It's just a form filler .

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

If we deported all these workers our health service would collapse and it would be just as dumb as brexit.

What are you plopping on about?

Deport all of which workers? You do realise that the majority of healthcare workers are either Irish/EU/EEA/British/CH and the majority of those that aren't have work permits?

Are you suggesting that the majority of our healthcare workers are here illegally?

Drivel post.

Wibbs

marieholmfan wrote: »

That's not a bug it's a feature. Contract out services that the state should be providing to connected insiders and you create opportunities for graft , backhanders and brown envelopes that simply wouldn't exist if all care homes were owned and run by the state.

I would agree.

Of course it's much less efficient and not fit for purpose but hey it's what the nursing home residents voted for...

Eh, hardly. The plain facts are that there is little choice and all choices run from Christ that's expensive to we need to mortgage our gaff and sell our kids insane money. Neither necessarily guarantee quality of service either. Nobody "voted" for this, least of all elderly residents and their families, never mind that a large proportion of those in such homes suffer from dementia. Your first paragraph nails the why and it wasn't down to the old or their families.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

s1ippy wrote: »

Persecution for your sexuality is one of the grounds upon which asylum is granted.

Why didn't she go to South Africa? No LGBT issues there.

There's no direct flights from Zimbabwe or anywhere in South Africa to Dublin.
She would've passed through France, The Netherlands, Germany or Denmark to get here.

Those countries are famous for human rights abuses :rolleyes:

jimmycrackcorm

quokula wrote: »

It's amazing how all those Irish emigrant in the US, Australia or elsewhere never noticed that the UK was closer.

Illegal Irish emigrants should not be allowed to stay in those countries either and in fact, they do get kicked out.

Strange how we always seem to describe them as the "undocumented" just like British immigrants abroad are "ex-pats".

WhenPigsCry

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Why didn't she go to South Africa? No LGBT issues there.

There's no direct flights from Zimbabwe or anywhere in South Africa to Dublin.
She would've passed through France, The Netherlands, Germany or Denmark to get here.

Those countries are famous for human rights abuses :rolleyes:

There is no requirement to seek asylum in any particular country, such as nearest safe country or first safe country arrived. The Dublin Protocol of 1990 did lay out some kind of system like that, but I think it's pretty much non-functional these days. Many asylum seekers fleeing lgbt persecution in Zimbabwe would go to S. Africa, but I think it has its own problems with xenophobia and violence against lgbt community.

marieholmfan

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

There is no requirement to seek asylum in any particular country, such as nearest safe country or first safe country arrived. The Dublin Protocol of 1990 did lay out some kind of system like that, but I think it's pretty much non-functional these days. Many asylum seekers fleeing lgbt persecution in Zimbabwe would go to S. Africa, but I think it has its own problems with xenophobia and violence against lgbt community.

South Africa in law is better than Ireland for gay people. They recognised gay marriage about a decade before we did.

I am not sure if that law would reflect the reality among Zulu farm workers or whatever, but the state certainly does not discriminate against homosexuals or lesbians.

Gervais08

marieholmfan wrote: »

South Africa in law is better than Ireland for gay people. They recognised gay marriage about a decade before we did.

I am not sure if that law would reflect the reality among Zulu farm workers or whatever, but the state certainly does not discriminate against homosexuals or lesbians.

Neither does Germany or the Netherlands (or the UK for that matter) which she would very likely have stopped at flying from Zimbabwe.

She’s a chance - if she’s even gay.

Donald Trump

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Illegal Irish emigrants should not be allowed to stay in those countries either and in fact, they do get kicked out.

Strange how we always seem to describe them as the "undocumented" just like British immigrants abroad are "ex-pats".

Lets go easy on the false equivalence.


The push to support the undocumented Irish in the US is for people who emigrated over to there in the 1980's and before and who have since built lives there but who just can't even go home for a visit.

There was always a history of emigration to the US. Irish citizens were fucked over in the 1960's when the US redesigned their immigration quotas. That fact was recognised in the early 90's with the granting of the Morrison visas which was a recognition that Ireland had not received fair treatment relative to other countries. Going to NY in the 1980's to work on the building over there was not the same as someone overstaying there now. These things only really tightened up post 9/11.



We're not talking about complete chancers arriving off the plane and making up a fake sob story. I'll challenge you to find me one Irish emigrant to the US who stepped off a plane, falsely claimed asylum and was put up in accommodation and given welfare and access to education there.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

There is no requirement to seek asylum in any particular country, such as nearest safe country or first safe country arrived.

I'll take your word on that.

Even if it is true though, it makes her claim less credible in my opinion that she slipped past several safe countries.

If a gun wielding maniac is chasing you down the street and Mrs. Jones opened her door to let you in do you say "nah, you're alright" and continue on down to Mr. Murphy's house 100 metres further?

WhenPigsCry

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I'll take your word on that.

Even if it is true though, it makes her claim less credible in my opinion that she slipped past several safe countries.

If a gun wielding maniac is chasing you down the street and Mrs. Jones opened her door to let you in do you say "nah, you're alright" and continue on down to Mr. Murphy's house 100 metres further?

Doesn't compare. The problem with a gun-wielding maniac is that they can pursue you down the street, so any potential safe haven you happen across will do (though I doubt that the front doors of Mrs. Jones or Mr. Murphy will be much more than temporary obstacles to a gun-wielding maniac.)

The authorities of Zimbabwe can't reach across borders, so once you are outside its borders you might carry on to another destination before ultimately making an application for asylum somewhere.

bocaman

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Illegal Irish emigrants should not be allowed to stay in those countries either and in fact, they do get kicked out.

Strange how we always seem to describe them as the "undocumented" just like British immigrants abroad are "ex-pats".

You are an "Ex-pat" if you are white, American, Irish, British etc. Am immigrant always has brown or black skin.

TomTomTim

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Illegal Irish emigrants should not be allowed to stay in those countries either and in fact, they do get kicked out.

Strange how we always seem to describe them as the "undocumented" just like British immigrants abroad are "ex-pats".

Always? It was a term hijacked from American media by our own media in around 2016. American MSM use it to soften that fact that these people have broken the law.

thegetawaycar

If she has her work permit withdrawn surely she shouldn't be working now.
She should be deported and healthcare companies should not be relying on direct provision workers to drive down costs.

The asylum process should not be used as a ways of filling vacancies, it's for those who genuinely need asylum. Those people should be looked after and once the claim processed and confirmed should be made welcome. People like this let down the actual genuine asylum seekers.

Dyr

We're going to actually deport someone for once? This is newsworthy, assume there'll be a media campaign to knock that on the head.

Gervais08

Bambi wrote: »

We're going to actually deport someone for once? This is newsworthy, assume there'll be a media campaign to knock that on the head.

Course there will - she’ll be in her forever home by Christmas.

weldoninhio

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Illegal Irish emigrants should not be allowed to stay in those countries either and in fact, they do get kicked out.

Strange how we always seem to describe them as the "undocumented" just like British immigrants abroad are "ex-pats".

Immigrants are usually defined as people who have come to a different country in order to live there permanently, whereas expats move abroad for a limited amount of time or have not yet decided upon the length of their stay

WhenPigsCry

weldoninhio wrote: »

Immigrants are usually defined as people who have come to a different country in order to live there permanently, whereas expats move abroad for a limited amount of time or have not yet decided upon the length of their stay

Britons who have retired to Spain, i.e. who have permanently settled in another country, are referred to as expats. Poles over in London to earn a few quid on the building sites before going home are routinely described as immigrants. It's clearly a distinction with racial or ethnic undertones.

s1ippy

Wow you must really have it bad if you begrudge this woman. Take a look at yourself and ask why you have so much hatred inside you.

Gatling

WhenPigsCry wrote: »

Britons who have retired to Spain, i.e. who have permanently settled in another country, are referred to as expats. Poles over in London to earn a few quid on the building sites before going home are routinely described as immigrants. It's clearly a distinction with racial or ethnic undertones.

I believe your wrong anyone who travels to another country to primarily work are considered immigrants that includes everyone from here to Africa there is no racial undertones unless your on a wind up and trying to connect the term to racism some how ,

Wibbs

Gatling wrote: »

I believe your wrong anyone who travels to another country to primarily work are considered immigrants that includes everyone from here to Africa there is no racial undertones unless your on a wind up and trying to connect the term to racism some how ,

I do see WhenPigsCry's point though, for at least in some cases, British expats being one, the immigrant label isn't applied. By the British anyway, the locals would see them as immigrants.

Gatling

s1ippy wrote: »

Take a look at yourself and ask why you have so much hatred inside you.

What hated are you on about .

She came here and was found not to be entitled to live and work here ,she tried various sob stories none of which proved she was entitled to be here ,

Can people stop the faux outrage and trying to play your all racist card

Wibbs

Gatling wrote: »

Can people stop the faux outrage and trying to play your all racist card

I'd see it more along the lines of old style religious approach to the new credo. The "you don't believe? You must have hatred in your heart" stuff. More appeals to feels. Objective realities be damned and ignored. And not just in this case and not just on the happy clappy diversity side either.

Donald Trump

Wibbs wrote: »

I do see WhenPigsCry's point though, for at least in some cases, British expats being one, the immigrant label isn't applied. By the British anyway, the locals would see them as immigrants.

It isn't exactly surprising though that the English language has a UK-centered viewpoint though is it?


Go to live in South America and you'll be a "gringo" for the rest of your days.......they don't refer to themselves as "gringos" when they go elsewhere.

jmreire

s1ippy wrote: »

Wow you must really have it bad if you begrudge this woman. Take a look at yourself and ask why you have so much hatred inside you.

Be better off analyzing why some of our "New Europeans" have so much hatred inside them.....hacking heads off innocent people shows a very high level of hatred.

TomTomTim

jmreire wrote: »

Be better off analyzing why some of our "New Europeans" have so much hatred inside them.....hacking heads off innocent people shows a very high level of hatred.

The old hatred line is such a bore. It's deeply irrational to hate people you don't know, so I doubt many do it. Yet that will never stop posters like that calling people hateful without evidence.

s1ippy

s1ippy wrote: »

Persecution for your sexuality is one of the grounds upon which asylum is granted.

STILL NOT A CRIME.

Why you arguing this with me? The user made a statement that theyre was a specific Criminal law here when there isn't. I'm not arguing anything else regarding asylum or persecution.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I do see WhenPigsCry's point though, for at least in some cases, British expats being one, the immigrant label isn't applied. By the British anyway, the locals would see them as immigrants.

This is it though, they are referred to as 'expats' by the nation they left, not by the nation they went to. That's pretty common the world over. The Spanish refer to the Spanish here as 'expats' (the Spanish equivalent anyway).