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

30-01-2017 04:55PM

jmayo wrote: »

Are you really trying to pull the p***.
Giving documents to someone in a camp in Greece or Italy or someone from Calais is not the same as them having identification documentation from their country of origin.

And who are going to be carrying out these interviews ?
What is the screening, do they consult the dept of justice in the countries that the claimants are supposedly from originally ?

Checked with whom ?
Are their details forwarded to Syrian authorities or authorities in Somali, Eritrea, Iraq, etc ?

Best as is possible says a lot.

I just love that way you are suddenly lumping camps in Lebanon in with camps in Greece and the jungle dwellers in Calais.

Another example of you playing loose with the facts and truth to suit your argument ?

There is a huge God damn difference between those three.

If the anti side tried that we would be searching google for verifying documentation and links for the next decade. :rolleyes:

What are you talking about?
This thread is about the minors being taken from Calais. They are being interviewed, fingerprinted & any info is being checked.
I never said I think it's a good idea to take them but we are.

Syrian refugees are being housed in the Lebanon & Greece. They are also being interviewed and info given is being checked.
The department of justice is ultimately responsible for who gets in. Recommendations are given by interviewers. Who include Gardai & in the case of Calais, tusla.

I'm sure the interviewers are well able to investigate and now what they are doing.

What more so you expect the authorities to do?

Mr.Micro · 30-01-2017 05:03PM

bubblypop wrote: »

What are you talking about?
This thread is about the minors being taken from Calais. They are being interviewed, fingerprinted & any info is being checked.
I never said I think it's a good idea to take them but we are.

Syrian refugees are being housed in the Lebanon & Greece. They are also being interviewed and info given is being checked.
The department of justice is ultimately responsible for who gets in. Recommendations are given by interviewers. Who include Gardai & in the case of Calais, tusla.

I'm sure the interviewers are well able to investigate and now what they are doing.

What more so you expect the authorities to do?

I think the bottom line is, many Irish people do not want them here. We Irish go everywhere and have done for generations. We should be happy to help where we can and do our bit.

30-01-2017 05:19PM

bubblypop wrote: »

What do you want me to answer in those posts?
The authorities are doing all they can do to screen these people & keep terrorists out.
I'm not really sure what else you want them to do?

Your opinion about a possible solution. An acknowledgement that there are areas of concern. Anything but the blind refusal to accept that there are real risks here, and there is also a real opportunity for genuine debate.

While we're playing the "There's a risk" - "No, there's not" game, we are all wasting our time.

It serves to completely stifle the discussion, to be fair.

ultra violet 5 wrote: »

there really should be free movement of all people to go wherever they want

Who's going to pay for all this? Where is the infrastructure?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Agreed.

Going off the point for a moment.
It always makes me laugh when us Irish are worried about terrorists. The irony. Terrorists have been endorsed and supported here for decades. So the terrorist excuse does not ring true IMO.

They have? You do know this is the Republic?

oscarBravo · 30-01-2017 05:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything but the blind refusal to accept that there are real risks here...

There are real risks involved in getting in a car. Do you use a car? Do you think parents should let their children travel in cars? What sort of monster would allow their child to travel in a car?! Don't they know there are risks?!?!

Yes, there are risks. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk - in fact, falling out of bed is statistically a lot more likely to kill you than a Muslim refugee is.

Widdershins · 30-01-2017 05:25PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are real risks involved in getting in a car. Do you use a car? Do you think parents should let their children travel in cars? What sort of monster would allow their child to travel in a car?! Don't they know there are risks?!?!

Yes, there are risks. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk - in fact, falling out of bed is statistically a lot more likely to kill you than a Muslim refugee is.

Necessary risks that go with modern life.

30-01-2017 05:27PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your opinion about a possible solution. An acknowledgement that there are areas of concern. Anything but the blind refusal to accept that there are real risks here, and there is also a real opportunity for genuine debate.

While we're playing the "There's a risk" - "No, there's not" game, we are all wasting our time.

It serves to completely stifle the discussion, to be fair.

They have? You do know this is the Republic?

No one said there isn't risks, there are risks everywhere!
Everything that can be done to ensure safety is being done.

As regards our own terrorists in this country, they have and continue to be active here & have support here.

oscarBravo · 30-01-2017 05:30PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Necessary risks that go with modern life.

...because nobody has ever died in a car accident as a result of taking unnecessary risks.

But hey: I get it. It's OK to risk your children's lives to avoid having to walk somewhere. But taking an infinitely smaller risk in order to give an immigrant a better life is utterly inconceivable.

The calculus of privilege, in a nutshell.

jmayo · 30-01-2017 05:55PM

alastair wrote: »

If you're actually interested, there's ample information about the screening, interview process, information forms to fill out, and appeals processes that asylum seekers have to go through up on the web. It's not exactly secret stuff.
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Difficult-to-Believe-The-assessment-of-asylum-claims-in-Ireland.pdf

There's no difference in the legal status of refugees located in Lebanon, Greece, or Calais, save that the refugees in the EU will have been fingerprinted by a EURODAC agency and interviewed by the EU state they're currently in.

There might not be difference in UN or international legal terms, but in reality there is a huge difference between the majority young males who were rich enough to get to Greece or Calais and poor devils stuck in a camp in Lebanon.

Reading through that document it appears to apply to people already in the state.
And the bottom line is it is also subjective because there is an element of taking the person at face value.
Also in one example they mention the

applicants solicitor applicant’s solicitor submitted copies of their Iranian birth certificate and national ID card, indicating that the originals are with the [Garda National Emmigration Bureau]

Now if all these refugees have no documents what happens in comparison to the above case ?

bubblypop wrote: »

What are you talking about?
This thread is about the minors being taken from Calais. They are being interviewed, fingerprinted & any info is being checked.
I never said I think it's a good idea to take them but we are.

Being checked against what or who ?
Who are their fingerprints sent to ?

bubblypop wrote: »

Syrian refugees are being housed in the Lebanon & Greece. They are also being interviewed and info given is being checked.
The department of justice is ultimately responsible for who gets in. Recommendations are given by interviewers. Who include Gardai & in the case of Calais, tusla.

I'm sure the interviewers are well able to investigate and now what they are doing.

What more so you expect the authorities to do?

So we are relying on Tusla and AGS ?

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think the bottom line is, many Irish people do not want them here. We Irish go everywhere and have done for generations. We should be happy to help where we can and do our bit.

Ah yes lets have the old Whataboutery.

Thing is the Irish emigrated, they went through checks to get into their host countries.

And when they got there they worked damn hard and didn't expect handouts.

And yes before you say it, we do know some Irish in the latter half of the 20th century went on the dole in the UK, but I will have you know none of the many relatives of mine who emigrated down through the years to UK, USA or Australia went on the dole or looked to the taxpayers of their new countries for handouts.
They worked and damn hard to make new lives for themselves and get this they integrated.
Yep they kept their religion, their music, their sports, but they integrated and their children, their childrens' children now call themselves American, British, Australian.
They don't hate the countries that took them or their ancestors in.

Widdershins · 30-01-2017 05:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...because nobody has ever died in a car accident as a result of taking unnecessary risks.

But hey: I get it. It's OK to risk your children's lives to avoid having to walk somewhere. But taking an infinitely smaller risk in order to give an immigrant a better life is utterly inconceivable.

The calculus of privilege, in a nutshell.

I didn't say anything about the acceptability of either. If you want to maintain an income, a child's education, or your heath by visiting a medical professional,and you live rurallly, the choice of walking often isn't viable. We do take pains to make driving safer. I think we have to do the same with the other risk being discussed here. *Wipes a fleck of privilege from the computer screen*

oscarBravo · 30-01-2017 06:06PM

Widdershins wrote: »

We do take pains to make driving safer. I think we have to do the same with the other risk being discussed here.

Given that immigrants are, statistically, orders of magnitude less dangerous than cars, I don't think we need to worry as much as some of the hand-wringers here would have us believe.

Mr.Micro · 30-01-2017 06:10PM

jmayo wrote: »

There might not be difference in UN or international legal terms, but in reality there is a huge difference between the majority young males who were rich enough to get to Greece or Calais and poor devils stuck in a camp in Lebanon.

Reading through that document it appears to apply to people already in the state.
And the bottom line is it is also subjective because there is an element of taking the person at face value.
Also in one example they mention the

Now if all these refugees have no documents what happens in comparison to the above case ?

Being checked against what or who ?
Who are their fingerprints sent to ?

So we are relying on Tusla and AGS ?

Ah yes lets have the old Whataboutery.

Thing is the Irish emigrated, they went through checks to get into their host countries.

And when they got there they worked damn hard and didn't expect handouts.

And yes before you say it, we do know some Irish in the latter half of the 20th century went on the dole in the UK, but I will have you know none of the many relatives of mine who emigrated down through the years to UK, USA or Australia went on the dole or looked to the taxpayers of their new countries for handouts.
They worked and damn hard to make new lives for themselves and get this they integrated.
Yep they kept their religion, their music, their sports, but they integrated and their children, their childrens' children now call themselves American, British, Australian.
They don't hate the countries that took them or their ancestors in.

What about the 50,000 undocumented Irish in the US. Have they gone though checks. No

What is to say any immigrants to Ireland would work hard to make a new life, if given the chance.

jmayo · 30-01-2017 06:11PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are real risks involved in getting in a car. Do you use a car? Do you think parents should let their children travel in cars? What sort of monster would allow their child to travel in a car?! Don't they know there are risks?!?!

Yes, there are risks. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk - in fact, falling out of bed is statistically a lot more likely to kill you than a Muslim refugee is.

Statistically the risk of being run over by a truck must be quiet small in the grand scheme of things.

But I reckon that is small consolation to the 86 people (10 children) killed and the 434 injured in Nice, nor the 12 killed and 56 injured in Berlin.

alastair · 30-01-2017 06:15PM

jmayo wrote: »

Statistically the risk of being run over by a truck must be quiet small in the grand scheme of things.

But I reckon that is small consolation to the 86 people (10 children) killed and the 434 injured in Nice, nor the 12 killed and 56 injured in Berlin.

Luckily they can be consoled by the fact that the perpetrators of those atrocities are in no position to harm anyone else. You still can't apportion blame onto other randomers - or to be fair, you can, as long as it's just to demonstrate the lack of logic to your bias.

jmayo · 30-01-2017 06:18PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What about the 50,000 undocumented Irish in the US.

What is to say any immigrants to Ireland would work hard to make a new life, if given the chance.

Even though the vast majority of them are working (no real alternative given their undocumented status like with huge chunk of Central and South Americans), and have made lives for themselves, technically they have no right to be there.

And as Trump has mooted if they break the law they should be shipped home immediately after any sentence has been served.

rgossip30 · 30-01-2017 06:19PM

alastair wrote: »

If you're actually interested, there's ample information about the screening, interview process, information forms to fill out, and appeals processes that asylum seekers have to go through up on the web. It's not exactly secret stuff.
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Difficult-to-Believe-The-assessment-of-asylum-claims-in-Ireland.pdf

There's no difference in the legal status of refugees located in Lebanon, Greece, or Calais, save that the refugees in the EU will have been fingerprinted by a EURODAC agency and interviewed by the EU state they're currently in.

A report on EURODAC search adhered .

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573304/EPRS_BRI(2016)573304_EN.pdf

The use of DNA for age in not accurate to 3.75 years for dental and 4.8 years .

https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2015/09/can-dna-testing-determine-age

Germany's Woes .I vish ve had a trump .

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-refugees-germany/?source=TRUMP

Mr.Micro · 30-01-2017 06:22PM

jmayo wrote: »

Even though the vast majority of them are working (no real alternative given their undocumented status like with huge chunk of Central and South Americans), and have made lives for themselves, technically they have no right to be there.

And as Trump has mooted if they break the law they should be shipped home immediately after any sentence has been served.

If they are all shipped home, will they welcome or be treated like refugees. We just export.

30-01-2017 06:35PM

jmayo wrote: »

So we are relying on Tusla and AGS ?
.

Who would you suggest to interview & investigate?

oscarBravo · 30-01-2017 06:36PM

jmayo wrote: »

Statistically the risk of being run over by a truck must be quiet small in the grand scheme of things.

But I reckon that is small consolation to the 86 people (10 children) killed and the 434 injured in Nice, nor the 12 killed and 56 injured in Berlin.

I'm sure the statistical unlikelihood of being hit by lightning is no comfort whatsoever to all the people who are hit by lightning every year either.

Bad people did terrible things. Blanket discrimination against entire groups of people - the vast majority of whom I'm sure you'll admit would never dream of taking part in terrorist activities - won't make bad things not happen.

What kind of human beings are we, that we would cheerfully have genuine refugees pay the price of reducing the risk to us from infinitesimal to marginally more infinitesimal? If pushing a Syrian (or a Somali, or a Welshman, or anyone for that matter) off a bridge would somehow reduce your chances of being hit by lightning, would you consider that a price worth paying?

Widdershins · 30-01-2017 06:37PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Given that immigrants are, statistically, orders of magnitude less dangerous than cars, I don't think we need to worry as much as some of the hand-wringers here would have us believe.

I'm sure you're right. I'm with the ones who advocate better vetting though. It needn't hurt anyone and could also protect genuine refugees.

oscarBravo · 30-01-2017 06:40PM

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm with the ones who advocate better vetting though.

Better than what, exactly?

30-01-2017 07:08PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are real risks involved in getting in a car. Do you use a car? Do you think parents should let their children travel in cars? What sort of monster would allow their child to travel in a car?! Don't they know there are risks?!?!

Yes, there are risks. Getting out of bed in the morning is a risk - in fact, falling out of bed is statistically a lot more likely to kill you than a Muslim refugee is.

Indeed. I'm delighted that people are finally beginning to acknowledge that there are risks.

bubblypop wrote: »

No one said there isn't risks, there are risks everywhere!
Everything that can be done to ensure safety is being done.

As regards our own terrorists in this country, they have and continue to be active here & have support here.

Then why is Frontex reporting that 60% of those who entered Europe economic migrants.

If by "our own terrorists" you mean the IRA, when did they bomb anywhere in the Republic? Or threaten to do so? I thought they were disbanded, anyway?
Certainly, there is an active peace process in the North of this Island, I'm pleased to say.

alastair wrote: »

Luckily they can be consoled by the fact that the perpetrators of those atrocities are in no position to harm anyone else. You still can't apportion blame onto other randomers - or to be fair, you can, as long as it's just to demonstrate the lack of logic to your bias.

Who apportioned blame onto other randomers?
Personally, I've said repeatedly that genuine refugees should be helped.
Paying out (some unquantified amount, less than) €275,000 yearly each on migrants that have no right whatsoever to be here is another issue entirely.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure the statistical unlikelihood of being hit by lightning is no comfort whatsoever to all the people who are hit by lightning every year either.

Bad people did terrible things. Blanket discrimination against entire groups of people - the vast majority of whom I'm sure you'll admit would never dream of taking part in terrorist activities - won't make bad things not happen.

What kind of human beings are we, that we would cheerfully have genuine refugees pay the price of reducing the risk to us from infinitesimal to marginally more infinitesimal? If pushing a Syrian (or a Somali, or a Welshman, or anyone for that matter) off a bridge would somehow reduce your chances of being hit by lightning, would you consider that a price worth paying?

I'm fully aware the vast majority of refugees would never dream of taking part in terrorist activities.

On the other hand:
Are you aware that there is a finite pool of resources, and that the 60% of migrants who, according to Frontex, have no claim to asylum whatsoever - are taking the majority of those resources?

Therefore, it is not those who are calling for greater controls on this site that are causing harm to genuine refugees - it is those who are scamming the system.

I have to go out. I'll get back to this later.

Edit: Sorry. I had to go out - something unexpected came up.

To continue: If I were an ISIS militant, who want to commit an atrocity in Europe, I'd probably have two choices.
I could chance my arm with forged documents (that probably cost a fortune!) - or, I could walk in, without documents, and claim asylum.

Now, that's a no-brainer. Why would anyone spend lots of money on forged documents, when the forgery might be detected, if they could walk in, uncontested, for free. No risk of being turned back, and housing, and an income guaranteed.

So, what is the percentage of those who are undocumented?
Strangely enough, in all the articles I've read, I've never come across an actual percentage figure for this. Vague terms like "many" are there in abundance. Therefore, unlike driving a car, or falling out of bed - we actually have no means of assessing the risk level.

We know that the experience in Europe has been negative, given that both Angela Merkel, and Wolfgang Schäuble have described it as a mistake.

The question everyone wants answered is: How do we improve on the German, French, and Swedish experience? Both from a security viewpoint, and from the viewpoint of directing scarce resources toward genuine refugees, rather than crooks. In addition we need to determine how best to utilise the resources we have, in a cost effective manner.

dissed doc · 30-01-2017 07:49PM

dissed doc wrote: »

I completely agree. The Irish DFA clearly lists the countries as being highly dangerous, and that no Irish national should travel there. If you do, you should be heavily screened.

It is also just like OBama did. He banned Iraq citizens for 6 months. No upset, no whining entitlement cry-episodes.

Zappone would probably like to finish with US pre-clearance as she is worried it may limit her ability to move in unchecked nationals of countries with high risk of terrorist events that otherwise wouldn't be allowed in.

Ha! Didn't take her long. She is the liberal equivalent of Katie Hopkins. You just can't take it seriously - she must be cracking up at all the crazy antics she can get up to, now that a bunch of suckers got her into government! Good times! Woo!

alastair · 31-01-2017 12:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Then why is Frontex reporting that 60% of those who entered Europe economic migrants.

They're not.

Deleted User wrote: »

Who apportioned blame onto other randomers?

You did. And continue to in this very post - with all the 'risk' narrative..

Deleted User wrote: »

We know that the experience in Europe has been negative, given that both Angela Merkel, and Wolfgang Schäuble have described it as a mistake.

No they have not. Schäuble said that mistakes were made, not that the policy was a mistake.
http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-defends-policies-stays-silent-on-populists-in-bundestag-speech/a-36489156
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/merkel-rejects-calls-to-change-germanys-refugee-policy-after-attacks

31-01-2017 12:50AM

alastair wrote: »

They're not.

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

More than half of all migrants to Europe are motivated by “economic reasons” and are not fleeing war or persecution, the vice-president of the European Commission has said.
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

alastair wrote: »

You did. And continue to in this very post - with all the 'risk' narrative..

Prove it! With a quote - thanks.

alastair wrote: »

No they have not. Schäuble said that mistakes were made, not that the policy was a mistake.

Semantics.

alastair · 31-01-2017 01:07AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Prove it! With a quote - thanks.

how do you identify the known ISIS fighter if they are not carrying any ID?

You can't! So, do we let them in anyway, and allow them to commit an atrocity? The kicker is, we can't actually keep them out, if they claim asylum.

It's wrong to refuse whatever help we can give to genuine refugees.
It's wrong to stand idly by and let ISIS members terrorize Europe.

Just to really make it tough - some genuine Syrian refugees are ISIS fighters.

Deleted User wrote: »

Semantics.

Not at all. They both defend the policy - the opposite of your false claim.

And - like I said - Frontex are not reporting any 60% figure. A year on and that supposed report is still unpublished:
https://euobserver.com/migration/132048

31-01-2017 01:42AM

alastair wrote: »

Not at all. They both defend the policy - the opposite of your false claim.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/712125/Angela-Merkel-admits-regrets-open-door-migrant-policy

Following a devastating defeat in Berlin state elections today, Mrs Merkel said she accepted her share of responsibility for voters punishing her ruling Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) party for her refugee-friendly migrant policy.
Speaking at a news conference in Berlin, she said: "If I could, I would turn back the time by many, many years."
The German premier admitted she could have been better prepared for the influx of migrants last year.
She added if she knew how people wanted her to change her migrant policy she would consider it.

https://www.rt.com/news/375507-german-government-refugees-mistakes/

Berlin made mistakes with its “open-door” refugee policy, which “went off course” and saw hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers entering the country over the past two years, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble admits.
The German government is currently trying “to improve what went off course in 2015,” Schaeuble told Die Welt’s Sunday edition in an interview. “We politicians are human beings and we also make mistakes, but one can at least learn from them,” he maintained.

alastair wrote: »

And - like I said - Frontex are not reporting any 60% figure. A year on and that supposed report is still unpublished:
https://euobserver.com/migration/132048

Let's wait for Frontex to publish the report for 2016, shall we? Unless you want to call Frans Timmermans a liar? If so, work away!

Now, to your unfounded accusation:

Where does questioning how you assess the risk of ISIS members entering Europe apportion blame to randomers:

Quote:
how do you identify the known ISIS fighter if they are not carrying any ID?

You can't! So, do we let them in anyway, and allow them to commit an atrocity? The kicker is, we can't actually keep them out, if they claim asylum.

It's wrong to refuse whatever help we can give to genuine refugees.
It's wrong to stand idly by and let ISIS members terrorize Europe.

Just to really make it tough - some genuine Syrian refugees are ISIS fighters.
Note the bolded sections please.
I'm afraid you'll have to do better.
There is nothing in that statement that apportions blame to randomers - unless you want to describe ISIS fighters as "randomers?"

alastair · 31-01-2017 02:09AM

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/712125/Angela-Merkel-admits-regrets-open-door-migrant-policy

https://www.rt.com/news/375507-german-government-refugees-mistakes/

Let's wait for Frontex to publish the report for 2016, shall we? Unless you want to call Frans Timmermans a liar? If so, work away!

Now, to your unfounded accusation:

Where does questioning how you assess the risk of ISIS members entering Europe apportion blame to randomers:

Quote:
how do you identify the known ISIS fighter if they are not carrying any ID?

You can't! So, do we let them in anyway, and allow them to commit an atrocity? The kicker is, we can't actually keep them out, if they claim asylum.

It's wrong to refuse whatever help we can give to genuine refugees.
It's wrong to stand idly by and let ISIS members terrorize Europe.

Just to really make it tough - some genuine Syrian refugees are ISIS fighters.
Note the bolded sections please.
I'm afraid you'll have to do better.
There is nothing in that statement that apportions blame to randomers - unless you want to describe ISIS fighters as "randomers?"

It's you who's describing random refugees as posing a risk as 'potential' ISIS fighters. Your emboldening really doesn't do anything to remove that claim. I'm afraid you'll have to come up with something better than dissembling.

The supposed document Timmermans was referring to related to 2015 figures. Frontex did not publish anything to support this claim, and their actual reports for 2015 tell a different story. He got it wrong - as you did:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/01/new-figures-dispute-timmermans-economic-migrants-claim/

Merkel in her new year speech, confirming the refugee policy was no 'mistake':

Merkel however has defended her open door refugee policy, which was passed in September 2015.

She said in her message, “With the images of the bombed in Aleppo in Syria, one may say once again how important and right it was that our country in the past year allowed those who actually need our help to be here with us, to take a step and to integrate.”

Adding, “All this — it is reflected in our democracy, in our state, in our values.”

The German Chancellor asked people to stay strong and promised them that the government would take swift and necessary political or legal changes to close down any security gaps.

http://www.gopusa.com/merkel-still-defends-open-border-policy/

She also portrayed her open stance toward waves of political refugees, especially from Syria, in the past two years as a point of pride for Germany.
"Despite all the critical discussions, last year there was a fantastic level of cooperation and solidarity," Merkel said. "Our country can truly be proud. I think one of the most urgent political tasks is the fight against illegal immigration and human trafficking."

http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-defends-policies-stays-silent-on-populists-in-bundestag-speech/a-36489156

jmayo · 31-01-2017 12:18PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sure the statistical unlikelihood of being hit by lightning is no comfort whatsoever to all the people who are hit by lightning every year either.

Bad people did terrible things. Blanket discrimination against entire groups of people - the vast majority of whom I'm sure you'll admit would never dream of taking part in terrorist activities - won't make bad things not happen.

There is such a thing as profiling and whilst it may not be liked by you or others, it does actually work.
During the 70s and 80s who were statistically most likely to commit terrorist atrocities in Britain?
It was Irish people.
Definitely not all Irish people, but there was still a risk and thus the British authorities would not let Irish people near certain sensitive targets and they carried out high degree of background checks.

Now what group pose the biggest security threat to Britain and the western world today ?

And yet you and others would allow people from that group into your country with shag all information as to their background, just based on if a members of Tusla or the AGS together with our Dept of Justice got a warm fuzzy feeling from them and found them believable.

Another example of how you prevent terrorist threats is the way El Al carry out background checks on people using it's flights.
In fact they are seen to set the gold standard for airline security and they have repeatedly foiled terrorist attacks and attempted hijackings.
They operate with the philosophy that it is under attack every day.

And that is what the security services in every single European country should operate under as well.
If the French did then a priest would probably be alive in France today or at lest if dead he wouldn't have been decapitated.
If the Belgians did then there would probably not have been a mass slaughter in Brussels airport or possibly in Paris.
If the Germans did then a certain 12 people would still be alive today in Berlin.

You will claim statistically most refugees or should that be migrants are not terrorists.
Whilst that may be true out of a million into Europe last year they reckon 5,000 are ISIS and God knows how many more would tacitly support the likes of ISIS.

That is more than a little scary and not quiet as benign as you would like to make out.

Then add in the criminal element and the antisocial behaviour brought by the migrants that have entered Europe and lo and behold there aren't any of the much vaunted benefits claimed by the pro side anywhere to be seen.
I don't hear much about doctors and engineers these days. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo wrote: »

What kind of human beings are we, that we would cheerfully have genuine refugees pay the price of reducing the risk to us from infinitesimal to marginally more infinitesimal? If pushing a Syrian (or a Somali, or a Welshman, or anyone for that matter) off a bridge would somehow reduce your chances of being hit by lightning, would you consider that a price worth paying?

Change that to Westport man and I might be tempted

BTW your comparison is null and void, the Syrian, Somalian or Welshman aren't the cause of the lightning, but get this two of those three are probably statistically way more likely to harm me because of their religious beliefs.
And they are statistically way more likely not to integrate into our secular western society.

bubblypop wrote: »

Who would you suggest to interview & investigate?

At this stage probably the Americans since even way before Trumps arrival they have had very strict vetting procedures in place.

We know the French, Belgians and Germans ability to vet and monitor people is cr** and has resulted in countless dead.

dissed doc wrote: »

Ha! Didn't take her long. She is the liberal equivalent of Katie Hopkins. You just can't take it seriously - she must be cracking up at all the crazy antics she can get up to, now that a bunch of suckers got her into government! Good times! Woo!

Basically zappone and that other muppet murphy that was on this morning would screw over Irish and other nationalities flying out of Ireland just to make their point.
Who suffers if US immigration facilities are removed from our airports ?
Fooking muppets. :mad:

31-01-2017 12:26PM

'Quote: bubblypop
Who would you suggest to interview & investigate?

At this stage probably the Americans since even way before Trumps arrival they have had very strict vetting procedures in place.'

Enough said, you would rather let a country miles away from us to get the people we let into our country?
Ridiculous.

How many terrorist attacks have been committed in Ireland? ( not by the ira I mean)
Seems to me vetting is going better then the Americans

And, FYI you have no idea how the vetting is done in this country.

oscarBravo · 31-01-2017 01:29PM

jmayo wrote: »

There is such a thing as profiling and whilst it may not be liked by you or others, it does actually work.

That's the same justification used for "stop and frisk", and it doesn't work. By far and away the most effective consequence of racial profiling is the creation of simmering resentment.

Now what group pose the biggest security threat to Britain and the western world today ?

Fast food restaurants.

It's a glib answer, sure: but the average westerner is several orders of magnitude more likely to be killed by a heart attack than by terrorism of any stripe, let alone by a Muslim immigrant. Hell, you're more likely to be killed by your lawnmower, or by your TV falling on you, than by Islamist terrorism.

And yet you and others would allow people from that group into your country with shag all information as to their background, just based on if a members of Tusla or the AGS together with our Dept of Justice got a warm fuzzy feeling from them and found them believable.

If you can find a reference to me or anyone else talking about warm fuzzy feelings, please cite it.

They operate with the philosophy that it is under attack every day.

And that is what the security services in every single European country should operate under as well.

OK, let's apply that philosophy more broadly: we had a great deal of hysteria earlier in the thread about how those nasty foreigners were going to rape us all. But the vast, vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by members of the victim's own family, or a close acquaintance.

Is anyone advocating that the police in every European country should operate on the assumption that everyone is a rapist? That nobody should be left alone with another person until an exhaustive background check has proven that they're not going to rape that person?

Of course not: that would be an unforgivable intrusion on people's civil liberties. But it's OK to operate on the assumption that people from certain countries or adherents to certain religions are potential terrorists, because they're somehow less deserving of civil liberties than the rest of us.

If the French did then a priest would probably be alive in France today or at lest if dead he wouldn't have been decapitated.
If the Belgians did then there would probably not have been a mass slaughter in Brussels airport or possibly in Paris.
If the Germans did then a certain 12 people would still be alive today in Berlin.

What group should we deprive of civil liberties as a result of Dylann Roof's actions? I don't recall you advocating for strong background checks of Norwegians as a result of Breivik's rampage.

You will claim statistically most refugees or should that be migrants are not terrorists.

Actually, I'll point out that the percentage of refugees that are terrorists is zero, to a useful approximation.

Whilst that may be true out of a million into Europe last year they reckon 5,000 are ISIS and God knows how many more would tacitly support the likes of ISIS.

Oh, they reckon, do they? Well, I don't know how to counter that sort of hard-and-fast evidence.

BTW your comparison is null and void, the Syrian, Somalian or Welshman aren't the cause of the lightning, but get this two of those three are probably statistically way more likely to harm me because of their religious beliefs.

...and still statistically less likely than being hit by lightning. It's funny how you're happy to invoke statistical likelihood when you think it supports your argument.

We know the French, Belgians and Germans ability to vet and monitor people is cr** and has resulted in countless dead.

Countless? Seriously?

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

Comments