Child refugees -majority to be males aged 17???

Brian? wrote: »

"Our own people"? Who do you define as "our own"?

Ireland should welcome legitimate refugees, so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?

There are no legitimate "refugees" coming into Ireland because they had to travel through so many safe countries in order to get here.

Saipanne

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

I do.

That opinion has not been approved.

Eoinmc97

Brian? wrote: »

"Our own people"? Who do you define as "our own"?

Ireland should welcome legitimate refugees, so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?

You missed the issue of "Who is a legitimate refugee?". As many have said here, it is not the refugees themselves, but those who scam the system and put legitimate refugees in jeopardy.
I personally see the issue being governments ignoring the democratic process, and ignoring what the citizens of their home country are saying. IMO, too much discussion and deliberation has been done in Brussels, and not enough in Ireland. We citizens have the rights to know and be informed actively;
Who is eligible?
For how long is the state to support them? Until the end of the conflict/famine/etc? Forever?
How is community/workforce/education integration going to be handled?
What if a community is unwilling to accept the refugee, and the refugee wants to move? Should their request be allowed, or denied under the idea of "Beggars cannot be Choosers"?
How is the cost per person per year higher than the average income?
Will their home country be subsidising this facilitation, or the welcoming country's tax payers?

All of those (and more) are serious questions to deliberate after all the facts have been given. Unfortunately, we do not have all the facts at hand.
There are even questions of 'morality' involved. Does one take a humanitarian response, or a nihilist view? Perhaps a justarian standpoint? The "value of life" throughout history has always been relatively little when viewed from the standpoints of monarchies, despots, crusades, comquerors etc. If viewed from a point of 'availability', world population is higher than it has ever been throughout the entirety of history, so from an economics of scale standpoint, the "value of life" is abysmally lower than ever. What about the 'condition' of the human? Does the "value of the person" depreciate when taking into consideration age, illness and health decline etc? (These are no doubt odd ideas, but I feel they are always interesting to ponder on)

So, if you value human life, you must value the fact that every human that lives will form opinion, often differing ones. All of the above have points of contention, so it is no longer as simple as "so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?"

Saipanne wrote: »

That opinion has not been approved.

Again, their opinion is just as valid and "approved" as yours.

taylor3

I would have concerns based on what is happening in other parts of Europe. In the long term how will all of this pan out.

Old Bill wrote: »

There needs to be a total shut down on "refugees" and asylum seekers coming into Ireland until our own people are looked after in terms of health, education and housing etc.

I get that some people believe that how deserving of human compassion a person is is a direct function of where they had the manners to be born, but not everyone feels that way.

Every civilised country has signed up to agreements that set out how refugees (the word doesn't need danger quotes - yes, I get that you're using them as a way of expressing your view that they're not genuine refugees without having to adduce any evidence for that belief) should be treated. If you believe that Ireland should renege on those agreements on the basis that Irish people are inherently more deserving, I guess you'll have to elect a government that agrees with you.

Old Bill wrote: »

Anybody who advocates "Refugees" coming into Ireland should have to pay for it through increased personal taxation.

That's not how public policy works. If everyone got to opt out of a percentage of their taxes on the basis of government expenditure they disagreed with, the country would be in quite the state.

Old Bill wrote: »

There are no legitimate "refugees" coming into Ireland because they had to travel through so many safe countries in order to get here.

Ah, that'll be the old "a genuine refugee would rather live in squalor in a refugee camp than move to country with prospects for improving their lot" canard.

I have no idea how people can persuade themselves of something this self-evidently bizarre, but I guess if you want to believe something badly enough, you'll find a way.

ChikiChiki

taylor3 wrote: »

I would have concerns based on what is happening in other parts of Europe. In the long term how will all of this pan out.

I agree with this. As we watch from afar it seems some migrants are bringing trouble to many cities and there are serious cultural differences that are not even being considered. So far we have not really felt a huge impact from the migrant crisis and we should take the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of other EU countries.

If most of the migrants coming here are unaccompanied males over 16 I would have serious concerns around their motivations.

newacc2015

Brian? wrote: »

Ireland should welcome legitimate refugees, so what if it costs money? Are you placing a particular price on each human life?

Since when has Calais in France turned into a war zone or a such a horrible place that we cost on "each human life" is no longer relevant? The Government has done the math and the price is €275k per year.

Syrians are safe in Turkey or Jordan, there is just little opportunity there. So they are travelling in vast amounts to take advantage of the once in a lifetime opportunity to live in wealthy Europe. Yes Syria is in a civil war, but there is rich parts of Damascus where life goes on as if there is no war.

The vast amount of money that the state is going to waste on these handful of children is the only way to describe it would be better spent on making life in the camps in Turkey better to stop these people coming to Europe to seek better opportunities.

taylor3

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I agree with this. As we watch from afar it seems some migrants are bringing trouble to many cities and there are serious cultural differences that are not even being considered. So far we have not really felt a huge impact from the migrant crisis and we should take the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of other EU countries.

If most of the migrants coming here are unaccompanied males over 16 I would have serious concerns around their motivations.

In reality it seems most young male migrants are bringing trouble, which is of great concern to me. I live in Roscommon and am raising a young daughter. I really don't think our government will 'learn' anything from the mistakes already made by other EU countries. Genuine refugees yes not a problem but the rest troubles me.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, that'll be the old "a genuine refugee would rather live in squalor in a refugee camp than move to country with prospects for improving their lot" canard.

I have no idea how people can persuade themselves of something this self-evidently bizarre, but I guess if you want to believe something badly enough, you'll find a way.

There is nothing bizarre about it these "refugees" are clearly economic migrants.

All notice how about 90% of them are young men where all the women and children and old people etc ?

screamer

taylor3 wrote: »

In reality it seems most young male migrants are bringing trouble, which is of great concern to me. I live in Roscommon and am raising a young daughter. I really don't think our government will 'learn' anything from the mistakes already made by other EU countries. Genuine refugees yes not a problem but the rest troubles me.

Problem is there is no way to vet a genuine refugee. They can say they're running away from anything and be accepted and the water taxi that is the Irish navy and co keep on carrying them over by the thousands. We need to be careful as a country that we don't turn ourselves into a place where we are afraid to live as then we become the refugees. Difference is no one will take us in.........

newacc2015 wrote: »

Syrians are safe in Turkey or Jordan...

A question to anyone who believes this: if you had a 16-year-old son, would you be happy to leave him on his own in a refugee camp in Turkey or Jordan? Or in Calais, for that matter?

Old Bill wrote: »

There is nothing bizarre about it these "refugees" are clearly economic migrants.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you know about them that the Department of Justice doesn't?

oscarBravo wrote: »

A question to anyone who believes this: if you had a 16-year-old son, would you be happy to leave him on his own in a refugee camp in Turkey or Jordan? Or in Calais, for that matter?

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you know about them that the Department of Justice doesn't?

The vast "majority" of "Refugees" in Ireland are bogey according to an official who worked in the department of Justice.

Old Bill wrote: »

The vast "majority" of "Refugees" in Ireland are bogey according to an official who worked in the department of Justice.

And they're genuine according to the officials who currently work in the Department of Justice. Why do you choose to believe this one person, other than the fact that he's telling you what you want to hear?

oscarBravo wrote: »

And they're genuine according to the officials who currently work in the Department of Justice. Why do you choose to believe this one person, other than the fact that he's telling you what you want to hear?

Its common sense we not near any of the countries they coming from.

Irish people never sought "asylum" in the likes of Pakistan or Nigeria.

If an Irish person sought "asylum" in one of those countries we would be laughed out the door.

Yet at same time we are suppose to take people in from those countries.

222233

Sadly, we have neither the services nor the supports in place or available to give these "children" the best possible chance. We don't have the services for the children that are already here, whoever made the decision to add more children to the crisis in health care, mental health services, education support, employment opportunity, crisis intervention - the list goes on should really have a chat with themselves.

It's ironic the DAFM will make sure you don't have as much as one cow more than you can facilitate yet we can add potentially hundreds of vulnerable adults / potentially children into what's already a catastrophic mess of a system.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

newacc2015

oscarBravo wrote: »

A question to anyone who believes this: if you had a 16-year-old son, would you be happy to leave him on his own in a refugee camp in Turkey or Jordan? Or in Calais, for that matter?

So how did a 16 year old get all the way from Turkey to France? It is amazing that despite Syria at war, that only guys ever seem to reach France in vast numbers as these people are often just economic migrants. Families send their young sons to Europe to find work and send money home. I imagine the taxpayer will shell out a few hundred thousand on these teenagers for them to flee to the UK to work a low wage job to send money home. But hey we made their life better?

That 10m could improve the lives of thousands of 16 year olds in Turkey instead of a few hundred in Ireland. That money would go so much further in the Turkey. A lone teenager in Calais is Frances problem not ours. When our economy improves are we going to starts supporting various unemployment Europeans and move them to Ireland too?

If I had a 16 year old son, I would not pimp him out by sending him to Europe on his own to earn money for us back in Turkey or Syria. If I knew European Governments would ship him back to Turkey or a camp in Italy, I probably would not send him.

Remove the incentive to move to Europe and the people will stop coming

dissed doc

newacc2015 wrote: »

That 10m could improve the lives of thousands of 16 year olds in Turkey instead of a few hundred in Ireland. That money would go so much further in the Turkey.

That €10 million will improve the lives of at least 10, if not 12 or maybe even 15 key people such as Peter Sutherland. It will create a steady income stream for the board members of several charities, refugee companies/orgs and NGOs, creating a safe exit from government for several politicians who offer very little in the way of useful ability.

They really need the cash! After the banking collapse, extracting money from taxpayers is harder. They need unilateral decisions to spend tax money in a way to move as much to the offshore bank accounts.

Someone's got to do the work! It may as well be you!

Phoebas

Old Bill wrote: »

Anybody who advocates "Refugees" coming into Ireland should have to pay for it through increased personal taxation.

Of course. In this case, the State is advocating (deciding) that refugees will come to Ireland - and that will be paid for by taxation.

So I guess that satisfies your criteria.

Old Bill wrote: »

Its common sense...

That sounds like shorthand for "I don't need facts, I have an opinion!"

Irish people never sought "asylum" in the likes of Pakistan or Nigeria.

If an Irish person sought "asylum" in one of those countries we would be laughed out the door.

You're horrid fond of the danger quotes. I suppose you'd split your sides laughing at the idea of, oh I dunno, an Australian seeking asylum in Ecuador?

newacc2015 wrote: »

So how did a 16 year old get all the way from Turkey to France?

That was supposed to be an answer to my question?

Remove the incentive to move to Europe and the people will stop coming

Sure, and if the Irish navy had just strafed the feckers in their boats instead of rescuing them, that might have discouraged them too.

I really can't get my head around how some people think "if we refuse to acknowledge that they're human, they might just stay in the miserable shíthole countries where they belong" is an acceptable view to express.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I get that some people believe that how deserving of human compassion a person is is a direct function of where they had the manners to be born, but not everyone feels that way.

Every civilised country has signed up to agreements that set out how refugees (the word doesn't need danger quotes - yes, I get that you're using them as a way of expressing your view that they're not genuine refugees without having to adduce any evidence for that belief) should be treated. If you believe that Ireland should renege on those agreements on the basis that Irish people are inherently more deserving, I guess you'll have to elect a government that agrees with you.

That's not how public policy works. If everyone got to opt out of a percentage of their taxes on the basis of government expenditure they disagreed with, the country would be in quite the state.

Would you be willing to accept figures from Frontex?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/six-out-of-10-migrants-to-europe-come-for-economic-reasons-and-are-not-refugees-eu-vice-president-a6836306.html

Dutch politician Frans Timmermans said the majority of migrants to Europe are from North African countries such as Morocco or Tunisia, where there is no conflict. “More than half of the people now coming to Europe come from countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status... more than half, 60 per cent,” he told Dutch broadcaster NOS.

His said his statement came after viewing new figures from EU border agency Frontex which have not yet been officially published.

As I said, genuine refugees, who are willing to integrate, I have no problem with.

Wasting 11 million on 40 migrants, however.....

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

I get that some people believe that how deserving of human compassion a person is is a direct function of where they had the manners to be born, but not everyone feels that way.

Its not a vague notion of "human compassion" we are talking about here, its about giving direct access of our taxpayer funded social welfare system to people on the other side of the world.

Do you realise thare are always small wars going on at any given time, and most of the countries involved have bigger populations than Ireland?
How is it a solution to evacuate the entire populations of these larger countries and bring them to Ireland?
How is it any solution to bring a tiny token of 40 individuals and spend €20M on them?
Would it not be better to spend that money feeding and housing a few thousand people in UN refugee camps adjacent to the war zones, so they could go home after the wars end?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, and if the Irish navy had just strafed the feckers in their boats instead of rescuing them, that might have discouraged them too.

Normal practice when rescuing someone at sea is to take them to the nearest port, or if the ship was on a tight commercial schedule, take them to whatever port it was going to beforehand.
The Irish navy is picking these people up just outside the Libyan 12 mile territorial limit, and then ferrying them hundreds of miles to Italy.
The ordinary Italian people are getting more and more pi$$ed off.

newacc2015

oscarBravo wrote: »

That was supposed to be an answer to my question? Sure, and if the Irish navy had just strafed the feckers in their boats instead of rescuing them, that might have discouraged them too.

Yes. Have you ever wondered how a 16 year old has gotten from Aleppo, Syria to Calais, France? You basically saying it is dreadful they are there, without questioning how they got there.

I am not saying let them drown. If the Irish navy instead of picking up boatloads of people in the sea and bringing them to Italy, if they keep picking them up and bringing them to Libya. Pretty quickly the vast amount going to Europe would stop.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I really can't get my head around how some people think "if we refuse to acknowledge that they're human, they might just stay in the miserable shíthole countries where they belong" is an acceptable view to express.

Do you know the difference between an asylum seeker and an economic migrant? Because looking at your comments, you don't appear to at all. A Syrian who goes to Turkey is safe and is an asylum seeker. A Syrian who gets to Turkey and doesn't like the standard of living and decides to head to Germany is still an asylum seeker, but they are more so an economic migrant. They were safe in Turkey, but they want a higher wage in Germany

No one is saying people should have to stay in a war zone, people are sick of individuals who can't tell the difference between an economic migrant and asylum seeker who believe economic migrants should be allowed to shop for the European country with the best welfare system/job market. There is a massive difference between lack of empathy towards asylum seekers and allowing economic migration

newacc2015 wrote: »

There is a massive difference between lack of empathy towards asylum seekers and allowing economic migration

+ 1.

Not only economic migration, but uncontrolled economic migration.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

+ 1.

Not only economic migration, but uncontrolled economic migration.

How many economic migrants left these shores for better lives?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How many economic migrants left these shores for better lives?

How many of them were picked up by a Naval Taxi service, allowed to freely (or as near as makes no nevermind) enter their Country of choice, and were then fed, clothed, and housed as refugees by that Country?

None.

Controlled migration is one thing.

Accepting migrants posing as refugees, with all the associated benefits, is quite another.

dissed doc

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How many economic migrants left these shores for better lives?

Let's check the Atlantic coastguard that picked up the famine ships 12 miles off the coast of Clare and ferried them to new York, supplying them on arrival with money, food, and housing, and education and healthcare.

Yes I remember that well.

It was well documented in the "Changs of New York", a documentary film on well-meaning Chinese local politicians in the 1850s who took it upon themselves to spend limitless amounts of money on personal projects such as a the Irish Refugee Catholics-only Centre in Times Square.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How many of them were picked up by a Naval Taxi service, allowed to freely (or as near as makes no nevermind) enter their Country of choice, and were then fed, clothed, and housed as refugees by that Country?

None.

Controlled migration is one thing.

Accepting migrants posing as refugees, with all the associated benefits, is quite another.

Ah so because the Irish did it a different way then that's OK?

It's true what they say, a nation of begrudgers.