Hypocrisy of this Government reaches a new high

TwoShedsJackson

As per the front of today's Irish Times, the Attorney General is to argue that an unborn child is not a person, so they can try and deport a pregnant Nigerian woman. Would they be doing this if the woman in question was white? I bloody doubt it.

Yet they would use the Constitutional protection of the unborn child to stop abortion being brought in. Oh wait, this Nigerian woman doesn't have a vote does she? Fu<k her so.

This Government is the most cynical bunch of power hungry hacks we've ever had to suffer - I hope that the electorate will throw them out on their ears at the general election. This kind of thing, allied with that prime BIFFO Brian Cowan's attempt to relocate the National Disease Surveillance Centre to Tullamore in his constituency (surprise sur-fucking-prise), shows just how little they care about anyone or anything save keeping their own hides in power.

Liam Lawlor

Point - taken,
but as far as i'm aware there is nothing unconstitutional about deporting a pregnant women, it's only when the child is born in this country has both mother and baby a right to citizenship. I could be wrong though but I don't think so.

Typedef

Originally posted by Castor Troy
As per the front of today's Irish Times, the Attorney General is to argue that an unborn child is not a person, so they can try and deport a pregnant Nigerian woman. Would they be doing this if the woman in question was white? I bloody doubt it.

Yet they would use the Constitutional protection of the unborn child to stop abortion being brought in. Oh wait, this Nigerian woman doesn't have a vote does she? Fu<k her so.

This Government is the most cynical bunch of power hungry hacks we've ever had to suffer - I hope that the electorate will throw them out on their ears at the general election. This kind of thing, allied with that prime BIFFO Brian Cowan's attempt to relocate the National Disease Surveillance Centre to Tullamore in his constituency (surprise sur-fucking-prise), shows just how little they care about anyone or anything save keeping their own hides in power.

The sad truth is Castor Troy is that while people like you and I find this kind of move repugnant an anthema to Republicanism, but there is a whole raft of people in this Republic who are actually quite racist and are quite happy to have black people thrown out of the country, fact. Of course the politicians will make it know that they are against racism, but when push comes to shove at election time, the same bunch of politicians are more than ready to capitalise on the undercurrents of racism that pervades Irish society, sad fact. I'm not saying that the politicians will condone racism, I'm saying they won't do anything about it, no instead the politicians allow the debate about "asylum seekers" (as all non-nationals seem to be labeled) to rage, with only comments like Mary Harney's about having a "buffer" of underclass non-nationals "we" can expell if things become too hairy, to act as guide as to government thought on the issue of multiculturalism in the Republic of Ireland.

It would be wonderful if the electorate actually managed to get out the dual monarchs of right wing governance in Ireland ie FG and FF, if only the Labour party could supercede FG as the second largest party then maybe Ireland could move away from the cycle of right wing governance that is the hallmark of every single government in my lifetime.

Look at the evidence, this current government has no compunction in prorouging the Nice result in indefinate "re-runs" of the referendum, bar the potential political damage to themselves, so why would anyone be shocked that the same band of corrupt individuals would capitalise on xenophobia and racism? Does Ireland really need another abortion referendum or does it really need to resolve this Nice issue now? The government is quite aware that associating itself with something that has as much mainstream support as another abortion referendum, will bolster their own meagre support, while at the same time ensuring that the government is re-elected before shafting the electorate on yet another referendum on Nice, a treaty the Irish people already democratically rejected.

bonkey

its very easy to point fingers, but the reality is that this woman was refused refugee status for some reason. She wants her pregnancy to override that refusal, and the Irish government are essentially saying that they wont accept that.

Personally, I'd agree with the government on this one.

jc

swiss

I for one am not surprised that the government have once again displayed their two-facedness. Whether an unborn child is a person or not is a matter for one's own personal morality and ethics, and amongst the theologians the debate still rages.

However the government have always used the notion that the unborn child is a person as a premise to perpetuate the problem of Irish women forced to look abroad for an abortion. Another referendum is due on abortion, where the issue is put to the Irish people. It is not for the attorney general to decide at what stage in pregnancy a foetus constitutes a person.

The idea that this argument is going to be used as the foundation of a deportation order is nothing short of disgusting. Our government, and our legal system are stooping to the level of business thugs, by seeking to use such an emotive and controversial issue to furthur economic ends. I certainly hope that this will not be forgotten in the forthcoming election.

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
However the government have always used the notion that the unborn child is a person as a premise to perpetuate the problem of Irish women forced to look abroad for an abortion.

This is a common misconception, which I cannot figure out.

The constitution - and by extension the government - acknowledges the right to life of an unborn child. No more, no less - just the right to life. Abortion is a violation of this right. The whole abortion issue deals with whether or not our constitution should trcognise the right to life of the unborn. Bringing it into this argument is purely misdirection.

Why?

Deportation, refusal of refugee status to the mother, or anything similar does not infringe upon this right to life. It has nothing to do with the right to life.

If the constitution acknowledged the unborn child as a person, it would not need to explicitly acknowledge its right to life, as a person has that automatically. In no place that I can find does the constitution explicitly confer "personage" on the unborn child. I'd be interested in knowing exactly where in the constitution this right is?

Anyway, while you're all on about the two-facedness and immorality of our government for doing this, consider these simple points.

1) The woman has been refused refugee status, and we do not know why. Cries of racism on this count are blatantly ridiculous, especially if you are not providing and criticising the reasons for this refusal. This is all prior to the current court case, incidentally.

2) This woman is seeking to pervert that decision. Whether or not her pregnancy was a deliberate attempt to guarantee her stay here, this court case is nothing short of farcical. Win, lose, or draw, all this case has to do is to drag on long enough that this woman gives birth, and then she must be allowed stay. She probably doesnt care if she wins or not...just as long as it takes enough time. While you're off calling our government two-faced on this issue, consider the moral high ground that the Nigerian woman clearly *isnt* standing on based on her actions.

3) The implications to the Irish state should this case be awarded against the state are huge. No woman who comes into Ireland while pregnant can be removed from the state, and must be offered citizenship once the child is born. No woman who becomes pregnant while in Ireland can be removed from the state, and must be offered citizenship once the child is born. This possible loophole must be acknowledged or refuted in a court of law, so that the government have precedent in further cases, or so that they can amend the rules to return some form of control over our immigration and refugee services. For this reason alone the government had no option but to contest the case.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
The idea that this argument is going to be used as the foundation of a deportation order is nothing short of disgusting.

No offence swiss, but did you even read the article?

The argument is not being used as the foundation of a deportation order.

This argument is over the Nigerian woman's challenge to a deportation order, and the government's response to that challenge.

There is a world of a difference between what you are implying, and what is actually happening.

jc

C B

Castor I hate FF as much as the next person and I'm no great fan of the PD's but I think you've been taken in by a particuarly jaundiced piece of journalism.

It is the defence which is arguing that a deportation order should be served seperately on the unborn child, and it is therefore the constitutional responsibility of the AG to argue against this defence. In this particular case it is absolutely ludicous that the authorities would be expected to serve orders seperately on two inseperable entities. Even if the constitution granted legal protection to the life of the unborn this does not mean that all other legal rights are granted to the unborn individual as they do not become a legal citizen until they are born.

Secondly Micheal McDowell (the curent AG), to the best of my knowledge, has never supported constitutional protection for the right to life of the unborn

Hobbes

It was my understanding that the child has to be born? Unless she could prove that being sent back will cause her to miscarriage.

If she was smart she would drag the whole thing out until the child is born here.

Typedef

One thing is for sure, politicians in this country don't mind having "toughness" on asylum seekers as an attribute and if the woman were white this state would be a whole lot more likely to be more sympathetic, racism is nothing official in law, it's just the people running the country and voting for politicians have very tacit, softspoken, hushed yet quite racist views. Fact. In fact the closer a person gets to the idealised Irish "norm" the less likely that person is to be mauled by red tape and people passing the buck, somehow though this kind of process always gets defended as "due process" or some other such non-word when in reality, there is a fair amount of racism behind it.

2 Cents.

If the unborn has the right to life from conception as the law in this state seems to be moving towards, then does the unborn not have a right of citizenship from conception also? Just a thought.

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef
If the unborn has the right to life from conception as the law in this state seems to be moving towards, then does the unborn not have a right of citizenship from conception also? Just a thought.

No. The child should be entitled to citizenship of the country in which it is born, or of the nationality of its parents.

The whole notion that a woman can come into a country, and simply because she's pregnant demand citizenship for her child is absolutely f*cking ludicrous. (which is what would happen if the court rules in her favour)

Noww .. as for my next bit .. before I start, let me first state that I am NOT a racist. I have several friends who are foreign and black/half-cast/whatever. Now on we go ......

To calls of a racist government, whilst I can't comment on individual opinions .. bear this in mind: Several family members of mine work in certain government departments who have FREQUENT dealings with asylum seekers (suffice to say I hear the stuff the papers DON'T print), and the general fact is that MOST (90something%) are here under false pretencences to milk the Irish state for what its worth. With that in mind who's the racist?? The native, or the person coming in viewing the native with contempt and attempting to exploit them??

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
One thing is for sure, politicians in this country don't mind having "toughness" on asylum seekers as an attribute and if the woman were white this state would be a whole lot more likely to be more sympathetic, racism is nothing official in law, it's just the people running the country and voting for politicians have very tacit, softspoken, hushed yet quite racist views. Fact.

What has any of this to do with the case in hand?

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by Castor Troy
Would they be doing this if the woman in question was white? I bloody doubt it.

Thats what.

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef

Thats what.

ACtually Typedef .. I do believe they ARE attempting to deport white pregnant women too?? Does the term "Romanian" mean anything to you?? Or are they being conviently overlooked since it totally flys in the face of your arguement?

Typedef

Or are they being conviently overlooked since it totally flys in the face of your arguement?

No, so you can relax.
Lemming I'd venture that a white Romanian is less likely to encounter the kind of racism black people do, of course white people get deported, I never said white people didn't get deported you did, but because the state happens to deport an "East European" does 'not' mean that there is not a near institutional racism in the Republic of Ireland, sure there are no laws that discriminate on the basis of skin colour but, the people who run this society are for the most part prone to cultrual and racial snobbery, it's a sad fact.
What's worse is that politicians are well willing to capitalise on the racism that pervades the Republic, by their statements (pervious post and Mary Harney's comments) and actions or lack thereof.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Would they be doing this if the woman in question was white? I bloody doubt it.

A challenge to the constitution MUST be taken the the High Court - the government are not permitted to decide the rightness or wrongness of a challenge - it is not within their demesne.

The case at hand was reported purely and solely because it is not a normal refusal of asylum. A constitutional challenge was levelled - a interpretation of our constitution which has no legal precedent. Exactly how is the government being racially motivated by doing what they always do, which is to take the issue to the High Court?

Assuming your racial argument is that she would never have been refused asylum in the first place were she white, then could you illistrate by supplying us with :

1) Examples of similar cases where white people were granted asylum without red tape.
2) The reasons why this Nigerian woman's request were refused, and why these reasons are racial in nature?

So - like I said - I fail to see how your racial rant is in any way connected to this specific case. If you want to go and rant about the racialism of our immigration services, then go open a thread for just that. This is a thread looking at one specific case, and other than your unsupported comment that this wouldnt happen to a white woman, I fail to see how any of your comment is relevant.

jc

swiss

Hrm,

To allow somone gain Irish citizenship for the mere fact that they are carrying an unborn child is indeed ludicrous. To do so would mean that anyone who attempts to gain illegal access to Ireland for whatever reason would automatically be entitled to citizenship as long as they were carrying an unborn child.

I don't know if the Irish state recognises an unborn child as a 'person' and consequently as a citizen, but I highly doubt so. Therefore, by logical rationale it is unreasonable to give the mother citizenship based on that simple fact.

There is a world of a difference between what you are implying, and what is actually happening.

Erm, quite. However an important issue is being raised in relation to the lengths to which the Irish government will go to deport our refugees. If this is a simple legal issue in which the question is raised as to whether the existence of an unborn child merits it's mother (and father as well, presumably) citizenship, then it should be resolved in court. To bring in the attorney general, to me, seems somewhat like overkill. I find it difficult to believe that this case is without precedent, and presents the government as having a hardline attitude towards refugees who wish to stay here. *hopes the above argument is enough to disguise an embarrasing u-turn *

Typedef's point about the ethnicitiy of the applicant also bears some relevance in this light. Would the government adopt such a hardline attitude in different circumstances - if the woman was American, for example. That may be difficult to determine, but the present situation hardly garners public sympathy towards genuine asylum seekers.

The issue in hand clearly has bears no relevance to either the race or culture of asylum seekers. The way it has been treated by the media and to a certain extent by the government certainly does. I hope that people don't make the same mistake I did, as this can polarise opinion in relation to a sensitive issue.

Typedef

Sorry lads without getting into an argument with half of boards.ie, I was just making a point about my observations of Irish society based on part of Castor Troy's post, thats all, let me make a point that racism based on skin colour exists in this country ignore it if you like, I'm not your keeper. When I was working in the Dial 'briefly' I overheard one of the Civil servants in there commenting on how he thought it was ridiculous that a person was writing to the Taioseach to complain about "all the blacks", and then he finished it off by saying, "well you wouldn't want them living beside you would you", to which his friend said "Or beside Celia" ie(Celia Larkin Bertie Ahern's girlfriend), and both of the guys started laughing. Therefore in the highest etilans of Irish administrative society racism exists, not in law but in deed.

Also the asylum laws and the entire system of immigration show how xenphobic and intraspective Irish society really is here .

Bonkey lets be clear, I am picking up on an aspect of the original post (ie) the implication that if the girl were white that she might not be having as hard a time and I am exponenciating it slightly to encompass socital trends and attitudes, not arguing the vicissitudes of this case.

The Gopher

Originally posted by Castor Troy
As per the front of today's Irish Times, the Attorney General is to argue that an unborn child is not a person, so they can try and deport a pregnant Nigerian woman. Would they be doing this if the woman in question was white? I bloody doubt it.

Yet they would use the Constitutional protection of the unborn child to stop abortion being brought in. Oh wait, this Nigerian woman doesn't have a vote does she? Fu<k her so.

As you know Troy I have never had time for your opinions and this just strengthens this belief.Do you honestly thiunk the government is throwing som1 out purely because they are black?Dont talk ****e and stop the PC **** stirring.If this woman was Polish,Kosovan,Albanian,Russian, or any of the perhaps dozen other countries of origin of white asylum seekers would ppl call it a race issue?The f*ck they would.It could have been as easily a pregnant Albanian as a pregnant Algerian-colour has nothing to do with it.The government wants this woman out for whatever reason.It mightnt be a valid reason but its got f u c k all to do with race and colour.

Victor

Originally posted by Typedef
In fact the closer a person gets to the idealised Irish "norm" the less likely that person is to be mauled by red tape and people passing the buck, somehow though this kind of process always gets defended as "due process" or some other such non-word when in reality, there is a fair amount of racism behind it.

In this context I agree with you. However, we all get mauled by red-tape, inertia and double-speak.

Originally posted by Typedef
If the unborn has the right to life from conception as the law in this state seems to be moving towards, then does the unborn not have a right of citizenship from conception also? Just a thought.

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN / CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND - Article 2
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. <snip>

Therefore, as it stands, until the baby is born neither mother nor child have citizenship. After the birth, the baby has citizenship and de facto the mother (and / or other family members) will be allowed be 'sponsored' by the baby.

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND - Article 40 Section 1
"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND - Article 40 Section 3 sub-section 3
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Therefore the constitution does not necessarily recognise non-citizens (the unborn and foreign born, not "qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland") as persons.

---

Generally, Irish law, in it's protections and obligations also applies to residents and visitors, including non-human legal personalities (e.g. a company is recognised as having a personality).

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
1) Examples of similar cases where white people were granted asylum without red tape.

Programme refugees from Croatia and Kosovo were very quickly accepted, with relatively little 'red tape'.

The Gopher

Just for those of you whining that black people and so on didnt get programme status the Vietnamese did back in the 70s and 80s and their relatives continue to to this day.

Lemming

Originally posted by Victor


Programme refugees from Croatia and Kosovo were very quickly accepted, with relatively little 'red tape'.

Ah .. that was different. They were flown over here en masse BY the government. Similar replays were made in other EU states also. The Bosnians were offered citizenship if they so choose it, but many wanted to be repatriated after the Bosnian conflict was settled, so to speak.

That was under different circumstances. Is there a war going on in Romania or the like?? Are they slaughtering each otehr in ethnic genocide??

Victor

Originally posted by swiss
Erm, quite. However an important issue is being raised in relation to the lengths to which the Irish government will go to deport our refugees.

Yes and no. To a degree, the government will only go as far as the claimant takes them. Those cases that reach court, by their very nature, are the extremely borderline (if I have explained that properly) cases, where the claimant doesn't accept the governments reasoning for refusing refugee status in the first instance and at appeal.

Originally posted by swiss
If this is a simple legal issue in which the question is raised as to whether the existence of an unborn child merits it's mother (and father as well, presumably) citizenship, then it should be resolved in court. To bring in the attorney general, to me, seems somewhat like overkill. I find it difficult to believe that this case is without precedent, and presents the government as having a hardline attitude towards refugees who wish to stay here.

Bringing in the Attorney General is quite normal, as he legally represents any case against Ireland, The State and the Government. He is not a silver bullet (as much as he would like to believe). In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions is, in effect, an extension of the AG.

Originally posted by swiss
Would the government adopt such a hardline attitude in different circumstances - if the woman was American, for example.

They probably would not. But have we had any American refugees? :rolleyes: OK, I accept the possibility of say an American overstaying a visa. I understand most deported non-Romanian 'whites' are Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders who over-stayed visas.

Sand

"Refugee" had her asylum claim rejected. She tried to use the child as a pawn so she could remain in the country. Failed. This brings about a discussion of immigration, and the inevitable racism accusations raise their predictable head. I remember saying something similar last week. Didnt know it would take so short a time period to be proven right.

Heres an interesting press release (God bless search engines) regarding the Irish governments policy towards asylum seekers and economic migrants- to shed light on what is otherwise opinions and guesswork

http://www.irlgov.ie/justice/Press%20Releases/Press-2001/pr-0703.htm

The most interesting part of the press release is the table that shows the total number of asylum seekers per year from 1992 to 2001. Ill get you some figures so you have an idea where im going with this

---

1992 39
1993 91
1994 362
1995 424
1996 1179
1997 3883
1998 4626
1999 7724
2000 10938

Im sure its just a coincidence that there were 39 back in 92, fast forward a few years (throw in some economic development) and we have 10938. Were there no refugees in 1992? Or is it more realistic to say the vast majority of asylum seekers are in fact economic migrants and that the rise in the numbers of applications in line with our economic growth is no coincidence at all?

Given this sort of situation is it really surprising this womans application was rejected and that she is being deported? Regardless of her colour? As the document says it is reality that the vast majority of applications across the whole EU are rejected. Bonkey has already enlightened people as to why the unborn childs citizenship was rejected by the court system.

What else is there to debate?

Boston

ive one thing to say on this,

actually on second thoughts no i dont, i have neither the time nore mental power to get into another one of these "pin the tail on the right to life, racist, communist" treads

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
http://www.irlgov.ie/justice/Press%20Releases/Press-2001/pr-0703.htm

"Press Release ... <SNIP> ... NOT FOR PUBLICATION" - Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Gobsheens.

Victor

Originally posted by The Gopher
Just for those of you whining that black people and so on didnt get programme status the Vietnamese did back in the 70s and 80s and their relatives continue to to this day.

Not wishing to fall into a trap but aren't Vietnamese people typically of Asian descent? And wasn't that about 20-25 years ago? And weren't they also treated badly?

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Im sure its just a coincidence that there were 39 back in 92, fast forward a few years (throw in some economic development) and we have 10938. Were there no refugees in 1992? Or is it more realistic to say the vast majority of asylum seekers are in fact economic migrants and that the rise in the numbers of applications in line with our economic growth is no coincidence at all?

The early figures are artificially low on a number of grounds.
1. There is evidence that many asylum seekers were summarily deported without investigation of their cases. This had direct and indirect effects.
2. Violence in the north painted the entire island in a bad light.
3. There were few existing ethnic communities in Ireland.
4. Our human rights legislation wasn't great at the time (not to say it is now perfect).
5. Economics was a factor.

Sand

Victor, applications have increased by a factor greater than 280 and you want to blame it on poor human rights legislation (Worse than what these refugees are supposedly fleeing from? ), few ethnic communities (There arent many/any now either given policy of dispersing migrants) and so on? When it is as clear as daylight the *major* change has been Irelands economic properity which has rocketed in similar proportions to Irelands intake of "refugees". Its sheer lunacy to describe what are economic migrants as "asylum seekers". If theyre economic migrants fair enough, we need useful skills but this agenda of describing all migrants as refugees is a bit much.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
If theyre economic migrants fair enough, we need useful skills but this agenda of describing all migrants as refugees is a bit much.

Fair enough, I can accept calling a spade a spade. However, probably less that a third of non-nationals in the country are or claim to be refugees.

Update on www.ireland.com

State retreats from saying unborn is not a person

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2002/0109/breaking57.htm

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
To bring in the attorney general, to me, seems somewhat like overkill. I find it difficult to believe that this case is without precedent, and presents the government as having a hardline attitude towards refugees who wish to stay here.

I was of the impression that the AG usually represented the government when constitutional issues were at stake.

I'm interested to see the second article - that the government "backs down". Was there any backing down at all here? As I pointed out before, the government cannot decide issues where the constitution is called into question, and must defer to a court ruling. Given that this woman
a) Is not an Irish citizen, and
b) initiated the court case challenging the constitution

then I would imagine that the government had no choice but to take her to court, regardless of their opinions on the issue. Their stance once in court is what tells.

A couple of things have spring to mind about this case which makes it even more interesting...

1) Where/how did an asylum seeker learn so much about Irish constitutional law to be able to find and challenge this potential loophole?

2) The state seems to be accepting some of the claims of the mother-to-be, but essentially saying that at most it would require a seperate deportation for the unnamed child. I'm not even sure teh judge will swallow this one, because you cannot name an unborn child on a deportation order, as the child has no legal name.

3) I notice that the woman's defense is also arguing that the Minister for Justice had not stated the reasons for deportation, which he is obliged to do.

Item 3 on this is the kicker. Despite all the various cries about racism in the press, here, and no doubt elsewhere, the fact remains that the woman herself does not allegedly know the reasons for her deportation, other than that she was refused refugee status. Given this lack of knowledge, is it not a bit precipitous to be laying claims of racism?

Whether or not the figures Sand posted are accurate, there has been a massive influx of asylum seekers over recent years. For this reason alone the process has become more "red-taped" - we must have some control over the flood. While I do not agree with some of the conditions which are imposed on asylum seekers, I agree with the government 100% that control is needed. Its not racism, its pragmatism. It would be racism if we refused many genuine asylum seekers on "engineered" grounds, granted certain ethnicities exemption (official or under the table) from this process, or if we refused specific ethnicities. Putting controls in place is not racist. I have yet to see an explanation of why our immigration/asylum laws are racist. I accept that many Irish people are quite racist, and particularly unwelcoming of refugees. I accept that the structures the government put in place have been somewhat tempered by this public reaction (the government obviously trying to keep the people happy and still do some of the right thing). I do not accept, however, that the granting of asylum is racially biased as seems to be argued by several people here.

In this case, control was applied, and the request for asylum denied. Anyone claiming to know more, or saying "this would never happen to a white woman" is basically expressing an unfounded opinion and no more. Show me the white women who avoided the red tape since the process was toughened in the past 5 years. Show me the reasons why this specific refusal is unfair. Then you have grounds for racist claims.

In the meantime, however, this remains nothing but opportunistic journalism - sensationalising a case far beyond its merits.

jc

The Gopher

Originally posted by Victor


Not wishing to fall into a trap but aren't Vietnamese people typically of Asian descent? And wasn't that about 20-25 years ago? And weren't they also treated badly?

Note the words "black ppl and so on"i.e other darker skinned ppls.

tools

[Racist claptrap snipped - Tools post something like this again and I will make your life a misery on these boards - Gandalf]

As Brian Lenihan said when asked about Ireland's atrocious emigration levels (30,000 a year at the peak), "We can't all live on a small island".



Look at the pathetic scroungers off to be useless in Americay. Gah.

Victor

Originally posted by tools
[tools racist crap removed]

Yeah, there is enough Irish people to do that .....

The Gopher

Originally posted by tools
[tools racist crap removed]

Im not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic but if it isnt it shows the typical attitude of an Irish waster.I really have to laugh when I hear my mother complaining that the gov has put Romanians in expensive houses near us.She dosent realise that they would just as easily put Irishppl there too.These ppl are likely there until they get corpo housing-I really doubt the gov would buy any1 a 250K house.There are probably hundreds of poor Irish round the island living for a few weeks in the likes of Castleknock before being moved on to the likes of Finglas.Ppl who complain the most recieve the most-for christs sake my mother hadnt a proper job in 16 years until recently out of sheer laziness.She had crap cleaning a job or 2,but only to claim dole after 6 months.And these are the ppl she would complain about.Sure there are crooked foreigners,but think of how many crooked natives you also know.If you got 12 Nigerians in a room chances are 3 may be dodgy.Then again so are probably 3 outta 12 Irish.Every race has crooks in equal measure.

Sand

And because we have some crooks its okay for more crooks to come? That appears to be your reasoning there.

I see were back to the racism again. Good to see there can be an immigration debate with it involved. I do get tired of all those reasonable ones where the arguments stress the economic pros and cons of immigration, the illegal nature of entry used by many migrants, and what migration achieves in the long term.

Has anyone considered that perhaps instead of simply absorpbing the flow of migration we should instead attempt to encourage them to solve the problems in their own countries- that this would help a lot more people than asylum currently does? Given the standard doctrine of a refugee fleeing a dictatorship is it wise to encourage the opposition forces, that would in time reform their country with aid, to instead flee and leave the dictatorship in power? Which does the most good in the long run?

Typedef

yawn...

And because we have some crooks its okay for more crooks to come? That appears to be your reasoning there.

Yeah right Sand, maybe the Republic should screen for the "crook gene" before admitting anyone into the country, that and the "Islamic terrorist gene". Or just simply bar anyone from coming to Ireland who is 1. Black 2.Romanian or 3.Muslim.

I see were back to the racism again. Good to see there can be an immigration debate with it involved. I do get tired of all those reasonable ones where the arguments stress the economic pros and cons of immigration, the illegal nature of entry used by many migrants, and what migration achieves in the long term.

Namely a multiculutral, and (striving for) pluralist society, not a one party right wing, totalitarian, big brother, repressive, xenophobic and self obsessed society, that perpetually elects the same tired and corrupt self-interested politicians, who do nothing but waste state resources and get themselves re-elected. Sure Ireland can have a platform of xenophobia and intraspective immigration laws that cater to the lowest common denominator of racist tendancies, and have the statuatory getting tough on immigration story every few weeks to make the "public" feel good about being the "second whitest country in the world", but I think that is extremely unhealthy. Do you people know that Ireland is the second whitest country in the world, sad fact.

Has anyone considered that perhaps instead of simply absorpbing the flow of migration we should instead attempt to encourage them to solve the problems in their own countries

Like how "we" helped the Afghani people solve their problems? By dropping bombs on them? Interferring in other countries internal affairs is wht the US has been doing for 75 years now give or take, though their proxies the CIA, or by simply going to war and all it gets the US, is enemies and all it brings to the world is human proxy genocide based on "American interests" like in Iraq. Hey Sand have you ever heard of the Common Agricultural Policy? Well in Europe it servs function X and function Y right, but when so-called "third world countries" (who are "coincidentially" former colonies of some of our "european partners") want to import produce into the EU, the Common Agricultrual Policy is used to prevent those contries from processing their raw materials. The CAP countries will not import the raw materials in a processed form, instead the CAP countries seek to provide those processing jobs within the CAP and thus maintain CAP interests, effectively preventing the move from a primary or agriarian economy to one of secondary or tertiary basis for the raw materials provider. So how about "we" dismantle the CAP, or simply give away the massive mountains, nay the glutenous mountains of excess food that sit in warehouses throughout the EU due to overproduction caused by the CAP? Hmm no, that hits a little too close to home doesn't it, I mean that actually might affect Ireland and our own comfortable little lives wouldn't it, to much like putting our money where our mouths, or rather "their" mouths are huh?
I mean who cares if the CAP exploits former colonies in a neo-imperialist economic rule, who cares if the money the former-colonies get from sale of their raw produce does not go to education and health care, but goes to paying off the massive interest repayments on debts that those same former colonies have amassed? So long as the CAP countries 1. Sell weapons to each side in African wars(wars fought because of boundaries the Powers of the day, now EU/CAP countries drew) 2. Keep the former-colonies in a new-imperialist economic doldrum 3. Maintain their own jobs and access to raw materials/ their interests?

Given the standard doctrine of a refugee fleeing a dictatorship is it wise to encourage the opposition forces, that would in time reform their country with aid, to instead flee and leave the dictatorship in power? Which does the most good in the long run?

Sand, God did not come down from heaven and give the west the sceptre of illucidation with which to decide which countries the "west" may and may not arbitrarily, according to the fashion of economic-political thought, install and toppel governments around the world. It is politics like that, that have brought about the massive deaths in Iraq due to the US playing god in that region (as "we" all well know), it is policies like that, that have the Mexican government spurred by "globalisation" to begin "displacing" native peoples in the South of Mexico, quite similar to how the Australian government "displaced" aborigines and then let off a whole load of nuclear weapons on the same ostensibly pristine aborigine land.

In the long run, countries like Ireland who are amongst the richest in the world could reap massive benefits from allowing high levels of immigration, just look at the United States, over 95% of it's citizens are colonists or are living on land that former colonists stole from the native Indians, so in a wider sense, allowing people who are self-starters, motivated and have the desire to leave their own country to make a better life somewhere else means that the recipeint country in this case, literally imports enthusiastic and motivated people.

Take the Irish that immagrated to the USA during and immediately after the famine in the 1840's, those people were refugees, now I know that lots of the anti-immigration/refugee people in Ireland seem to be quite pro-Us so take example from the USA of the 1840's and welcome immigrants to Ireland. Ireland is a fairly underpopulated country, so why should the Irish fear adding some new and interesting people to the mix of Irish life? How could the Irish expect the US to take Irish immigrants for so long and in such high numbers, but when the shoe is on the other foot, start baning on about changing the machisma of other countries(given the disasterous examples cited)?

Aspro

Typedef, you're wasting your time.

You can't turn Adolf into Mother Theresa. Mé Féiners only care about themselves and making money at the expense of others.

They are deliberately blind to the inequalities and injustices of our world because after all "people are selfish" etc etc crapology.

Has anyone considered that perhaps instead of simply absorpbing the flow of migration we should instead attempt to encourage them to solve the problems in their own countries- that this would help a lot more people than asylum currently does?

That is the most arrogant comment I've heard in a long while.
Yeah, cos people should be confined to one geographical area, shouldn't they? Those silly ignorant savages fighting amongst themselves. Our governments in the West have nothing to do with their situations, do they? Never supported a tin pot dictator or sold them weapons, did they?

If capital can flow freely across borders, so should people be able to. Human history is a history of migration and resettlement.

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef
In the long run, countries like Ireland who are amongst the richest in the world could reap massive benefits from allowing high levels of immigration, just look at the United States, over 95% of it's citizens are colonists or are living on land that former colonists stole from the native Indians, so in a wider sense, allowing people who are self-starters, motivated and etc

And what happened to the native indians Typedef?? There's a lesson there. Technically those people you spout on about in the US ARE the colonists that you spoke of and that land STILL belongs rightfully to the native indians.

Also, as a woman pointed out about the famine on the radio last year, the Irish that left weren't given sh*te when they arrived into the US. They had to fend for themselves. They weren't given state assistance in any great shape or form. So equating the famine to the current influx of ECONOMIC migrants falsely claiming to be refugees is an insult to those that were forced to leave.

Whilst we're on the whole thingy of these people, I have no problem with migrants, but when they falsely gain entry to MY country, and exploit ME (tax payer) to support them and theirs, I have a VERY big problem.

Try to see what I'm saying instead of howling "racist" at every person that points out that MASSIVE exploitation of our system is being carried out. Nay .. let me rephrase that: the Irish asylum system is being systematically RAPED by chancers.

And what do you think that is doing for the chances of genuine asylum-seekers?? It's alienating the natives to people that truly need our support and sympathy. It's making it harder for them to become accepted or to gain asylum status because the system becomes more and more jaded and cynical to their plight. Consider the Bosnians taken in. Was there a fuss kicked up?? No, because people knew they were genuine and were sympathetic to them. What do you think would happen to a genuine asylum seeker in the current climate?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Aspro
If capital can flow freely across borders, so should people be able to.

Erm it does. It's called the EU.

I'm sure money doesn't flow all that freely from countries that people are trying to leave. It certainly doesn't across countries outside of the EU.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Has anyone considered that perhaps instead of simply absorpbing the flow of migration we should instead attempt to encourage them to solve the problems in their own countries- that this would help a lot more people than asylum currently does? Given the standard doctrine of a refugee fleeing a dictatorship is it wise to encourage the opposition forces, that would in time reform their country with aid, to instead flee and leave the dictatorship in power? Which does the most good in the long run?

Yes, I can see it now...

"I'm sorry sir, you cant come in to Ireland for asylum. We know your political leaders jailed half your family, and killed your parents for alleged political activism, but we think you should return to your country and face these despots down. To help you, we will offer moral encouragement from our safe little corner here that you cant come in to. After all, thats why you havent overthrown your oppressive government to date - you werent getting our moral support. And just to show we're not all bad, we'll put you on a plane to make sure you get back there to fight this oppression as quickly as possible".

I dont think that will work somehow.

jc

Typedef

Originally posted by Lemming
And what happened to the native indians Typedef?? There's a lesson there. Technically those people you spout on about in the US ARE the colonists that you spoke of and that land STILL belongs rightfully to the native indians.

To be more acurate the indians were invaded and colonised by the industrial powers(Britian) and rising industrial powers(the first colonies), whereas the Irish are amongst the most affluent people in the world and there is no question of the government allowing such massive numbers of migrants to outnumber Irish 10 to 1, so stop trying to deflect the argument.

Also, as a woman pointed out about the famine on the radio last year, the Irish that left weren't given sh*te when they arrived into the US. They had to fend for themselves. They weren't given state assistance in any great shape or form. So equating the famine to the current influx of ECONOMIC migrants falsely claiming to be refugees is an insult to those that were forced to leave.

Insult? I think that there are huge equivalences between the Irish of the day who were socio-economic migrants and the 'refugees' of today, emphasis on the 'socio' portion of socio-economic. Now people can bury their heads in the Sand and simply ignore that Ireland is the second whitest country in the world and continue to 'talk tough' on immigrants or people can welcome multicultralism and diversity to the Republic.

Whilst we're on the whole thingy of these people, I have no problem with migrants, but when they falsely gain entry to MY country, and exploit ME (tax payer) to support them and theirs, I have a VERY big problem.

When you throw litter on the ground you are exploiting "Your country". There are parts of the world which are substantially poorer than Ireland and yes people want to have the opportunity to make money, that's not a crime, it should be ecouraged, especially by the right wing who are on a constant whinge about the left and the lefts money wasting(FYI Bill Clinton Leftist President: Avg Economic growth 4% pa, George Bush Rightist President: Avg Economic growth 1.7% pa). If Ireland weren't so xenophobic and racist, people who wanted to come to Ireland to make their fortunes would be free to do so, but no the Irish state long time pontificator of equality an fairness and freedom can't even stretch it's arcane and exclusionary immigration attitudes to abrogate a noose like Ireland being the second whitest country in the world, now that is nothing to do with refugees.

Try to see what I'm saying instead of howling "racist" at every person that points out that MASSIVE exploitation of our system is being carried out. Nay .. let me rephrase that: the Irish asylum system is being systematically RAPED by chancers.

The Irish Republic is the (let me say this again) second whitest country in the world, the Irish Republic is the bad guy here, get a grip.

It's alienating the natives to people that truly need our support and sympathy. It's making it harder for them to become accepted or to gain asylum status because the system becomes more and more jaded and cynical to their plight. Consider the Bosnians taken in. Was there a fuss kicked up?? No, because people knew they were genuine and were sympathetic to them. What do you think would happen to a genuine asylum seeker in the current climate?

Seeing as how your chances of getting "refugee status" are what 1 in 10, or was it 1 in 5, I don't think that this state will be swamped by a huge influx of "undesirable people" anytime soon, so you people burying your heads in the Sand can relax. What migrant people really want is for the Irsh to put there immigration laws where there supposed principals of Democracy and equality are and relax the laws regarding migration outside of EU countries, I don't want to live in a whites only, quasi-celtic supremecist, right wing, xenophobic place and people should stop whinging about "refugees defrauding the 'system'" or "taking jobs" and get up off of their prejudices and go and make a life for themselves.

Biffa Bacon

The Irish Republic is the (let me say this again) second whitest country in the world, the Irish Republic is the bad guy here

What's wrong with that? Also Typedef, what is your immigration policy? Who should be allowed in and who should not? I don't want Ireland to become a multicultural society because I think it would be an anlienating place to live.

Lemming

Originally posted by Typedef

Insult? I think that there are huge equivalences between the Irish of the day who were socio-economic migrants and the 'refugees' of today, emphasis on the 'socio' portion of socio-economic. Now people can bury their heads in the Sand and simply ignore that Ireland is the second whitest country in the world and continue to 'talk tough' on immigrants or people can welcome multicultralism and diversity to the Republic.

Yes .. "Insult". The difference is that we didn't go in and claim asylum (falsely too I might add) and expect to be handed money left right and centre. This is also NOT a case of "2nd whitest country in the world." As I do believe you said "Stop trying to deflect the arguement".

am trying to argue the cynical way in which WE (yup .. you, your family, me, mine, etc) are being exploited by these people who have no business claiming refugee status. If you wanted to move to another country as an econmic migrant, you'd be expected to pay your own way in said country. Yet ... these "refugees" expect us to set them up.

Seeing as how your chances of getting "refugee status" are what 1 in 10, or was it 1 in 5, I don't think that this state will be swamped by a huge influx of "undesirable people" anytime soon, so you people burying your heads in the Sand

Already happening. So pull your own head out of the sand. Housing can't cope, and the situation is costing the Irish taxpayer an enourmous sum of money per year, and growing ever and ever bigger.

What migrant people really want is for the Irsh to put there immigration laws where there supposed principals of Democracy and equality are and relax the laws regarding migration outside of EU countries.

Hmmm .. I do believe MOST countries are rather stringent about migration. Don't the USA hold a f*cking lottery for green cards ffs?? What about New Zealand?? You have to have min. £3000 (or equivalent Euro) in your bank account so you're self-sufficient and not walkign straight onto their social welfare??

besides ... 2 wrongs don't make a right, so these people can't claim the moral high-ground by falsely portraying themselves as refugees.

people should stop whinging about "refugees defrauding the 'system'"

90something percent of them ARE you twit!! (internal government figure)

Tell ye what ... the following ACTUALLY happened:

A family member of mine worked in the Dept. of Justice when a woman came in claiming to be from nigeria or somewhere with 2 children. So they went and get a translator.

The woman went off with the translator whilst the two children were left in the care of workers. One of the guys asked the yoiung boy - about 12 years old - (there was a boy and girl) if he liked football, not really expecting an answer. The boy responded in an ENGLISH accent that he followed Liverpool and had been to see them the week before, and that they (the family) were only over for the day on the boat for a "holiday".

"taking jobs" and get up off of their prejudices and go and make a life for themselves.

you said that Typedef .. not me. I have no problems with them working. it's the manner in which they are trying to get into the country that gets me p*ssed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
There are parts of the world which are substantially poorer than Ireland and yes people want to have the opportunity to make money, that's not a crime, it should be ecouraged

Absolutely, except that the so-called economic refugees are (to a large extent) believed to be coming over here to live off a generous welfare system. There are those who want to come here, get a job, and do well, but these are not the people whom Lemming is complaining about at a guess.

Seeing as how your chances of getting "refugee status" are what 1 in 10, or was it 1 in 5, I don't think that this state will be swamped by a huge influx of "undesirable people" anytime soon, so you people burying your heads in the Sand can relax

Now hang on a sec - you're the one complaining about the racism and xenophobia in our country which you want to see gone. Now you're saying that because so many refugees are refused (which you have in the past attributed at least in part to racism or xenophobia) that we dont need to worry about being swamped by them.

You cant have both sides. Either we are right to refuse them on a simple "numbers" basis, or we are racist.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

I don't want Ireland to become a multicultural society because I think it would be an anlienating place to live.

I see.

You would also accept then that every other nation in the world should also have the right to do so, and indeed would have been perfectly correct to tell the millions of Irish emigrants over the past 2 centuries to sod off?

Exactly what is alienating about multiculturalism, by the way, other than xenophobism ???

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey

Absolutely, except that the so-called economic refugees are (to a large extent) believed to be coming over here to live off a generous welfare system. There are those who want to come here, get a job, and do well, but these are not the people whom Lemming is complaining about at a guess.

Head of Nail ... .meet hammer!! Got it in one bonkey

I now await TypeDef and co to call me "racist" .

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey

You would also accept then that every other nation in the world should also have the right to do so, and indeed would have been perfectly correct to tell the millions of Irish emigrants over the past 2 centuries to sod off?

Yes and yes.

Exactly what is alienating about multiculturalism, by the way, other than xenophobism ???

Multiculturalism as I see it is where all cultures are considered equal, i.e. there is no defining national culture. This robs people of their identity, leading to alienation.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Multiculturalism as I see it is where all cultures are considered equal, i.e. there is no defining national culture. This robs people of their identity, leading to alienation.

Ah - ok. As matter of interest, have you ever lived in a multicultural society?

Are you implying that America, Britain, and France (picking the three most multicultural western nations I can think of offhand) no longer have a national identity? If anything, the opposite is true. As foreigners start eroding the national identity, the natives rally round and become even more nationalistic. Over time the foreigners become "natives of foreign descent" and are integrated into the nationalistic identity. Take the large number of Pakistanis in England for example. While there are those who stick to themselves, and cling to their own ways, these people typically form tight small communities and wouldnt be in your way. Many more of them, however, embrace the nation they find themselves in, particularly one or two generations in.

Multicultural diversity, if anything, strengthens national identity in my opinion, and gives us all the chance to learn a little.

IMHO, people put too much weight on "loss of national identity". If its so fragile a thing that it cant withstand some competition then its a myth to begin with.

jc

tools

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Multiculturalism as I see it is where all cultures are considered equal, i.e. there is no defining national culture. This robs people of their identity, leading to alienation.

Ah the voice of reason. We should instigate a massive "send 'em back where they came from" policy.
First we need samples of everyone's DNA. Starting with kicking out anyone of viking extraction, then we do the normans, then the bloody brits, then the even bloodier scots prods, then getting bang up to date, we boot out asians, blacks, americans, australians, western europeans, eastern europeans and so on. Irish "identity" must be reclaimed. We must go back to our roots, dancing at the crossroads with comely irish maidens, listening to the seanchai by the turf fire, and all that bolloks before it's too late.

We should ban travel in case anyone picks up alien cultural habits and infects the rest of us with them. Look at the damage the negro invention, so-called "rock and roll music", has done to our young people! We should also restrict information through the various media for the same reason. Who needs a newspaper when oul' Mickey O'Mick is there to sing us songs about the glorious exploits of the Fianna!?

If this policy cannot be carried out in full, even a partial success should be aimed for. Who is considered a greater threat to our identity and culture? It would have to be said that europeans with similar skin tones to ourselves stand much less chance of alienating our people so we should turn our immediate attention to more insidious dangerous races who have no intention of "fitting in" and adopting irish "culture" (our proud traditions of bad food, alcoholism and institutionalized child abuse) , such as the blacks, asians and arabs. We should follow Austria's Freedom Party's example and "encourage" them to leave.