UN Migration Pact Ireland's Position?

FreudianSlippers · 04-12-2018 12:11pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Attachment not found.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

Poland has some of the lowest rates of rape, robbery, homicide etc.. in the world, not just the EU. Its identified as one of the least likely places for a terrorist attack to occur. Despite low wages and a not free for all welfare state, burglaries remain low.
https://www.politico.eu/article/politics-nationalism-and-religion-explain-why-poland-doesnt-want-refugees/

Poland wants to keep its culture and society that it has cultivated, while being quite religious and it reminds us of times gone by here, the Catholic Church does not have the legislative grip that it had here.

Poland only stands to lose by loosening its immigration rules or taking migrants, there is no upside for them.

I never said they had 0% crime , saying they are relatively safe does not mean 0 crimes and you know this, you're just throwing this crap around.

This argument certainly carries significant weight compounded with the vast evidence you have provided that immigrants and/or immigration-related issues are the root cause of crime in Ireland and/or other EU countries.

Oh... wait.

Gravelly · 04-12-2018 12:14pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

4) I answered your question if you bothered to read past the first point in my post. Unfortunately, you won't see this answer if you continue previous form of not reading past the first point. Ironic.

When the first point is utterly ridiculous, it rather discourages the reader from investigating further. I did on this post of yours, and, as I suspected, it didn't get any better.

FreudianSlippers · 04-12-2018 12:14pm

Gravelly wrote: »

You seem to be angry and idiotic in most of your posts.

I have 17,500+ posts... a significant percentage of which are in Legal Discussion. I'm not sure what qualifies you to opine that these posts are "idiotic".

Gravelly · 04-12-2018 12:17pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have 17,500+ posts... a significant percentage of which are in Legal Discussion. I'm not sure what qualifies you to opine that these posts are "idiotic".

I was extrapolating from the few I read. Since 100% of those are idiotic, I think it's a fair assumption to make that you haven't suddenly degraded from being a genius previously.

FreudianSlippers · 04-12-2018 12:22pm

Gravelly wrote: »

When the first point is utterly ridiculous, it rather discourages the reader from investigating further. I did on this post of yours, and, as I suspected, it didn't get any better.

Ok. I'll explain this to you as if someone were explaining it to me (an obvious idiot).

UNGC resolutions (and other instruments) although non-binding act as a sort of international forum, representing international consensus. These agreements have a significant impact politically as well as on a national scale in both legislation and customary law. So, the point of the international community coming together to show support (albeit symbolically) against the rise of the far-right extremist general anti-immigrant views is both symbolically important, but also assists in influencing national legislation.

Gravelly wrote: »

I was extrapolating from the few I read. Since 100% of those are idiotic

Such as...

I think it's a fair assumption to make that you haven't suddenly degraded from being a genius previously.

I wouldn't say I was a "genius" before, but certainly specialisation in a specific area of law in my career has definitely degraded my general knowledge in other areas. Part of getting older I guess...

no.8 · 04-12-2018 12:34pm

weisses wrote:

Poland and Hungary will reject anything and anyone that inst Caucasian ...Cannot take them seriously at this stage

Why? Is it because they have a backbone? Or is it for historical reasons? If you look back you'd be understanding as to why the Poles distrust uncontrolled influx or outsiders

no.8 · 04-12-2018 12:39pm

weisses wrote:

What culture ? ...Christian values ?

What culture???? How ignorant. Go there to both of these countries and educate yourself will you! Yes a part of the culture is based on Christian values but so what. That's their history, that's engrained. How they survived I don't know.
I'm for immigration as it's how the human race survived. However it has to be at a controlled level imho... And acceptance varies so respect that. A mass influx of foreign bodies is bad in every situation (see the history of South America, Australia etc.)

FreudianSlippers · 04-12-2018 12:42pm

no.8 wrote: »

Why? Is it because they have a backbone? Or is it for historical reasons? If you look back you'd be understanding as to why the Poles distrust uncontrolled influx or outsiders

Morawiecki and his Law and Justice party are far right... as I said, this is a symbolic dig at the far right by the UN as well as an influential policy signal. Almost zero surprise that this has been jumped on by the far right pundits (and posters) as a major issue, when in reality it's just a signal test. Even if they agreed to sign it, there would be no impact on these countries.

FreudianSlippers · 04-12-2018 12:44pm

no.8 wrote: »

However it has to be at a controlled level imho... And acceptance varies so respect that. A mass influx of foreign bodies is bad in every situation (see the history of South America, Australia etc.)

What part of the pact allows for uncontrolled levels of immigration?

ancapailldorcha · 04-12-2018 1:07pm

Gravelly wrote: »

When the first point is utterly ridiculous, it rather discourages the reader from investigating further. I did on this post of yours, and, as I suspected, it didn't get any better.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have 17,500+ posts... a significant percentage of which are in Legal Discussion. I'm not sure what qualifies you to opine that these posts are "idiotic".

Gravelly wrote: »

I was extrapolating from the few I read. Since 100% of those are idiotic, I think it's a fair assumption to make that you haven't suddenly degraded from being a genius previously.

no.8 wrote: »

How ignorant.

Enough of the sniping please.

hill16bhoy · 04-12-2018 1:55pm

no.8 wrote: »

What culture???? How ignorant. Go there to both of these countries and educate yourself will you! Yes a part of the culture is based on Christian values but so what. That's their history, that's engrained. How they survived I don't know.

I'm not a religious person, but I did go to Roman Catholic schools. What I took as the core tenet of "Christian values", as you put it, and one that is entirely admirable, is that one should show compassion for others, especially those who are less fortunate than themsleves, especially "outsiders".

Supporters of the regimes in Poland, Hungary and Italy, and Russia and the US for that matter, love to trumpet this line about them supposedly having "Christian values".

Yet their policies are based on the vilification of the less fortunate and "outsiders".

How is this consistent with so called "Christian values"?

What are these "Christian values" they hold?

On any reasonable reading of the situation, politics which claims to be based on the so called "upholding of Christian values" is nothing more than code for the legitimisation of bigotry, vilification and ultimately genocide - and the polar opposite of genuine "Christian values" of compassion (values which in reality are universal and in no way confined to Chrstianity).

Politics which claims to be "pro-Christian values" is in fact anti-Christian values.

And that's pretty much all it has ever been, going back thousands of years.

hill16bhoy · 05-12-2018 5:28pm

demfad wrote: »

On the contrary Poland and and particularly Hungary are puppet Governments of the Kremlin. Russia is a State more or less controlled by a mixture of USSR KGB, oligarchs and criminals. If you think any State under the influence of Russia is safe or in a good place then you are naive or you believe in Fascism.

i) Widespread cold blooded murder of political opponents.
ii) Imprisonment of political opponents.
iii) Rigged "elections".
iv) Destruction of an independent judiciary.
v) Destruction of a free press in favour of reality-denying "official" state propaganda.
vi) Destruction of academic independence.
vii) Illegal and brutal occupations of other countries.
viii) Widespread interference in the democratic processes of other countries.
ix) Corruption and criminality on an industrial scale.

These are now, apparently, "Christian values".

<SNIP>

Chips Lovell · 05-12-2018 5:45pm

Mod Note

I've deleted one post and edited another. Please stick to the facts. Please don't post conspiracy theories.

If you think people are trolls, Russian or otherwise, please report those posts and we'll look at them. Don't call it out on thread as it just drags the thread off topic.

Thanks

Chaos Marine · 06-12-2018 1:44am

I'm against it. National sovereignty is important. Ireland was under the yoke of British rule for almost a thousand years. The idea of giving up our right to self govern to the EU makes my blood run cold.

Ever since the EU forced the Irish government at the time to undergo a second vote for The Lisborn Treaty I've been skeptical of the EU. Then you have the EU trying to exert political pressure on Ireland to do away with the tax concessions that brings businesses into Ireland because it's "unfair" to the other states. The censorship articles that they're trying to push to how they're treating the UK as it attempts to leave after a lawful election smacks of fascism. Keep in mind that a woman had her human right of free speech taken away because she said Muhammed was a paedophile by the EU Human Rights Tribunal and shortly enough, the EU is trying to make criticizing migrants a hate crime.

I have absolutely no problem with the EU as a trading bloc only. I'd be more than happy with the EU if that was all it was but I don't want Ireland to be subjected to being forced, either militarily or politically into Guy Verhofstadt's "Empire of the good".

Keep in mind, when the British leave the EU, if Macron, Verhofstadt and Merkel's European Army becomes reality, who's going to foot the bill? How can we guarantee it's not going to be deployed in European nations just because?

Mass or unchecked immigration is not something Ireland should be considering when we have a rampant homeless and housing crisis because what else happens when you introduce masses of low or unskilled labour? Wages go down as the volume of workers increase. This isn't a conspiracy or fear mongering, this is what happens. More Irish people being unable to afford rent or mortgage payments and more homeless who won't have the benefit of a "progressive" government footing their food and housing bills.

To those who are, in this threat, criticizing Poland and Hungry? Check out the number of terrorist attacks in those countries compared to those in Germany and France.

I'm not against migration either. Just unchecked or mass migration like the EU is proposing. We need to know who is coming into our country, if they're really adults or children as I'm not entirely comfortable with seeing pictures from some kid's phone of an adult male wearing a school uniform trying to pass themselves off as a teenager coming from Irish students.

Redneck Culchie · 06-12-2018 2:01am

There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate, protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.

hill16bhoy · 06-12-2018 2:46am

Chaos Marine wrote: »

I'm against it. National sovereignty is important. Ireland was under the yoke of British rule for almost a thousand years. The idea of giving up our right to self govern to the EU makes my blood run cold.

Ever since the EU forced the Irish government at the time to undergo a second vote for The Lisborn Treaty I've been skeptical of the EU. Then you have the EU trying to exert political pressure on Ireland to do away with the tax concessions that brings businesses into Ireland because it's "unfair" to the other states. The censorship articles that they're trying to push to how they're treating the UK as it attempts to leave after a lawful election smacks of fascism. Keep in mind that a woman had her human right of free speech taken away because she said Muhammed was a paedophile by the EU Human Rights Tribunal and shortly enough, the EU is trying to make criticizing migrants a hate crime.

I have absolutely no problem with the EU as a trading bloc only. I'd be more than happy with the EU if that was all it was but I don't want Ireland to be subjected to being forced, either militarily or politically into Guy Verhofstadt's "Empire of the good".

Keep in mind, when the British leave the EU, if Macron, Verhofstadt and Merkel's European Army becomes reality, who's going to foot the bill? How can we guarantee it's not going to be deployed in European nations just because?

Mass or unchecked immigration is not something Ireland should be considering when we have a rampant homeless and housing crisis because what else happens when you introduce masses of low or unskilled labour? Wages go down as the volume of workers increase. This isn't a conspiracy or fear mongering, this is what happens. More Irish people being unable to afford rent or mortgage payments and more homeless who won't have the benefit of a "progressive" government footing their food and housing bills.

To those who are, in this threat criticizing Poland and Hungry? Check out the number of terrorist attacks in those countries compared to those in Germany and France.

I'm not against migration either. Just unchecked or mass migration like the EU is proposing. We need to know who is coming into our country, if they're really adults or children as I'm not entirely comfortable with seeing pictures from some kid's phone of an adult male wearing a school uniform trying to pass themselves off as a teenager coming from Irish students.

Ireland has national sovereignty. It has used that sovereignty to enter into agreements re internal migration as part of the EU.

Ireland has complete national sovereignty over migration from outside the EU. Why are you implying it doesn't, when you know it has?

Why are you comparing the EU to the British empire, when any cursory reading of the situation could tell you the two things are entirely different, and that far from being an "empire", the EU is the exact opposite of such?

Do you support free movement within the EU?

If you don't, why not just come straight out and say you're in favour of Ireland leaving the EU, given that that would be the logical upshot of being against free movement?

If there is a causation effect between in-migration and wages going down, surely then, there should be a causation effect between out-migration and wages going up?

Surely then the USA, the world's greatest ever experiment in large scale in-migration, would thus prove that wages go down when there is large scale in-migration?

Surely the countries with significant out-migration would thus see the biggest rise in wages? How did that ever work out for Ireland?

Do you support internal migration within countries? I mean, Dublin has changed beyond all recognition in the last 100 years? Why do you think that is?

The main reason is because massive numbers of people have migrated to it - the vast majority from other parts of Ireland. In your language, that's "mass migration". It doesn't matter whether somebody moves to Dublin from Letterkenny or Lahore, they're still a migrant.

Was this a good thing or a bad thing for Dublin?

How about Galway, which has grown massively in recent years?

Is the fact that massive numbers of Dubs have moved to Navan, Drogheda and Portlaoise a good thing for those towns?

They're "outsiders", they have migrated on a large scale to a different place.

How about pretty much every major city in the world, which all grew because of massive in-migration from other parts of whatever country they're in?

Should Britain have abolished the Common Travel Area during the Troubles?

The Common Travel Area enabled/enables free movement for residency purposes from Ireland to the UK and vice versa.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, Irish people carried out large numbers of terrorist attacks in Britain. Surely then, by the same rationale that you use above, Irish people should have been stopped from moving to Britain? Yes?

On the flipside of that, if one was to be paranoid enough, couldn't one have argued back then - hell, you could argue it now - that if enough British people moved here as a result of free movement, we could have ended up rejoining the UK? Would that have been a legitimate reason to oppose the Common Travel Area?

I'm just trying to get your angle on all these questions, because it appears to me you're just one more poster trying to claim that racism has nothing to do with your views when it appears bleedin' obvious that it has everything to do with it.

hill16bhoy · 06-12-2018 2:51am

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate, protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.

Let me guess, it'll be attended by the sort of people who think Gemma O'Doherty is the font of all knowledge?

Or that Hermann Kelly is a serious political figure and not a total laughing stock?

I'll take the "People Before Profit types" over them any day, thanks.

Captain Obvious · 06-12-2018 9:09am

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate, protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.

Interesting way for the Irexit crowd to fill out the numbers. No doubt the crowd pictures will be used in future propaganda for Irexit.

batgoat · 06-12-2018 9:24am

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Ireland has national sovereignty. It has used that sovereignty to enter into agreements re internal migration as part of the EU.

Ireland has complete national sovereignty over migration from outside the EU. Why are you implying it doesn't, when you know it has?

Why are you comparing the EU to the British empire, when any cursory reading of the situation could tell you the two things are entirely different, and that far from being an "empire", the EU is the exact opposite of such?

Do you support free movement within the EU?

If you don't, why not just come straight out and say you're in favour of Ireland leaving the EU, given that that would be the logical upshot of being against free movement?

If there is a causation effect between in-migration and wages going down, surely then, there should be a causation effect between out-migration and wages going up?

Surely then the USA, the world's greatest ever experiment in large scale in-migration, would thus prove that wages go down when there is large scale in-migration?

Surely the countries with significant out-migration would thus see the biggest rise in wages? How did that ever work out for Ireland?

Do you support internal migration within countries? I mean, Dublin has changed beyond all recognition in the last 100 years? Why do you think that is?

The main reason is because massive numbers of people have migrated to it - the vast majority from other parts of Ireland. In your language, that's "mass migration". It doesn't matter whether somebody moves to Dublin from Letterkenny or Lahore, they're still a migrant.

Was this a good thing or a bad thing for Dublin?

How about Galway, which has grown massively in recent years?

Is the fact that massive numbers of Dubs have moved to Navan, Drogheda and Portlaoise a good thing for those towns?

They're "outsiders", they have migrated on a large scale to a different place.

How about pretty much every major city in the world, which all grew because of massive in-migration from other parts of whatever country they're in?

Should Britain have abolished the Common Travel Area during the Troubles?

The Common Travel Area enabled/enables free movement for residency purposes from Ireland to the UK and vice versa.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, Irish people carried out large numbers of terrorist attacks in Britain. Surely then, by the same rationale that you use above, Irish people should have been stopped from moving to Britain? Yes?

On the flipside of that, if one was to be paranoid enough, couldn't one have argued back then - hell, you could argue it now - that if enough British people moved here as a result of free movement, we could have ended up rejoining the UK? Would that have been a legitimate reason to oppose the Common Travel Area?

I'm just trying to get your angle on all these questions, because it appears to me you're just one more poster trying to claim that racism has nothing to do with your views when it appears bleedin' obvious that it has everything to do with it.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the EU...

FreudianSlippers · 06-12-2018 10:44am

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate,

Who says there won't be a debate in the Oireachtas before this is signed?

protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.

Hard pass.

hill16bhoy · 06-12-2018 11:45am

batgoat wrote: »

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the EU...

It has everything to do with the EU in the same way Salvini claimed the Genoa bridge collapse had everything to do with the EU.

Which in reality, of course, is nothing.

And it has everything to do with the paranoid fantasies of far right zealots who hanker after a return to the 1930s, deciding to fight an entirely imagined "culture war".

Because that's what their chums in the far right in America did, and they see it as their main way of winning votes.

RandomName2 · 06-12-2018 12:06pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This argument certainly carries significant weight compounded with the vast evidence you have provided that immigrants and/or immigration-related issues are the root cause of crime in Ireland and/or other EU countries.

Oh... wait.

Okay, so Eric Cartman was talking exclusively about Poland, and provided evidence to show there's low crime there.

Correlation does not mean causation, yeah?

Eastern Europe has the toughest stance on immigration, and some of the lowest crime rates. But this overall statistic can hide some interesting details, like the fact that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia all have very high murder rates.

On the flip-side, in Western Europe, Austria and the Netherlands have remarkably low crime rates, despite having relatively high immigration.

However, the rise in crime in Germany and Sweden can be directly attributed to immigration. Whether or not this crime will abate will largely depend on how well both countries cope with their millions of new residents.

The ability to give a definitive answer to this is complicated by the dearth of research, the lack of statistics available, the really-really out of date nature of the statistics that are available, and the broad nature of what is meant by 'immigration' and 'crime'. For instance the murder rate in Italy has been plummeting the last few years, but non-violent crime is on the rise.

What reports do exist about this convoluted subject are clearly incredibly biased and amount to little more than scaremongering about the 'specter of the far-right' on one side and 'destruction of civilization' on the other.

Sand · 06-12-2018 3:55pm

weisses wrote: »

What culture ? ...Christian values ?

That is amusingly ignorant. A Polish state has existed on and off since at least the 10th century under the Piast dynasty, and the Polish nation has endured and persisted for over 1,000 years even when their kingdoms and republics have fallen. And all you can say is what culture?

As for the pact, it seems clear that Ireland should not sign it. Its advocates state is is non-binding, and accomplishes nothing meaningful. So why take the risk of Ireland signing up to a compact with no upside for Ireland?

Going through the text itself its clear it is written with an agenda that is inimical to Ireland's interests, and that of Europe as a whole. This is why it is proving so controversial.

8 - Migration has been part of the human experience throughout history, and we recognize that it is a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world, and that these positive impacts can be optimized by improving migration governance.

These are repeated myths about migration, but its the prism through which the rest of the text is written. Mass migration as a symptom of globalisation is good, and the aim of the document is to facilitate it, not prevent it.

10 - We also must provide all our citizens with access to objective, evidence-based, clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration, with a view to dispelling misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants.

Again, this is the viewpoint that informs the text. It is not entertained that that negative perceptions of migration could be derived from objective, evidence-based clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration. To the extent that information is to be provided to citizens, it is only with the aim of facilitating mass migration.

15 - The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law.

As the aim of the compact is facilitate mass migration, and the compact will be leveraged as part of 'international law' the above affirmation is essentially worthless. Once Ireland has signed up to this compact, it has signed up to facilitate mass migration to Ireland and that will be used by NGOs, institutions and lobby groups as a stick to intimidate future Irish governments into compliance, nominally sovereign or not. The 23 points are framed as commitments, and a serious country does not lightly sign up to commitments, binding or not.

It's also worth noting that the text concerns itself almost entirely with the rights of migrants. To the extent the people of destination countries are considered, it's with a perfunctory note that their concerns should be addressed, but not listened to.

There is absolutely no benefit to Irish people in this document, but there is a lot of risks. Our government should absolutely not sign up to this. The Irish government can continue to set its own migration policy without this document in any case.

hill16bhoy · 06-12-2018 4:12pm

Sand wrote: »

That is amusingly ignorant. The Polish state has existed since at least the 10th century under the Piast dynasty, and the Polish nation has endured and persisted for over 1,000 years even when their kingdoms and republics have fallen. And all you can say is what culture?

The Polish state has not existed since the 10th century. That's simply a historical lie.

The Polish state dates from the period directly after World War I.

Do mean to say the idea of a Polish state has existed since the 10th century? Because that's an entirely different thing.

If you tell us that a Polish state has existed since the 10th century, then Ruthenia and Galicia and all manner of other "states" are "states" too.

Except that they aren't.

The Islamic caliphate of Spain would be a "state". Israel would be a state with a history lasting thousands of years. Never mind that it was formed in 1948.

hill16bhoy · 06-12-2018 4:33pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, the rise in crime in Germany and Sweden can be directly attributed to immigration. Whether or not this crime will abate will largely depend on how well both countries cope with their millions of new residents.

In 2017, Germany recorded its lowest crime rate since 1992.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-crime-rate-migration-antisemitism-horst-seehofer-a8343226.html

Sweden's overall crime rate has held steady since 2005. The commonly-used trope about the rape rate exploding due to Muslim immigration is long-debunked bull****.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786

demfad · 06-12-2018 4:37pm

Sand wrote: »

That is amusingly ignorant. A Polish state has existed on and off since at least the 10th century under the Piast dynasty, and the Polish nation has endured and persisted for over 1,000 years even when their kingdoms and republics have fallen. And all you can say is what culture?

As for the pact, it seems clear that Ireland should not sign it. Its advocates state is is non-binding, and accomplishes nothing meaningful. So why take the risk of Ireland signing up to a compact with no upside for Ireland?

Going through the text itself its clear it is written with an agenda that is inimical to Ireland's interests, and that of Europe as a whole. This is why it is proving so controversial.

These are repeated myths about migration, but its the prism through which the rest of the text is written. Mass migration as a symptom of globalisation is good, and the aim of the document is to facilitate it, not prevent it.

Again, this is the viewpoint that informs the text. It is not entertained that that negative perceptions of migration could be derived from objective, evidence-based clear information about the benefits and challenges of migration. To the extent that information is to be provided to citizens, it is only with the aim of facilitating mass migration.

As the aim of the compact is facilitate mass migration, and the compact will be leveraged as part of 'international law' the above affirmation is essentially worthless. Once Ireland has signed up to this compact, it has signed up to facilitate mass migration to Ireland and that will be used by NGOs, institutions and lobby groups as a stick to intimidate future Irish governments into compliance, nominally sovereign or not. The 23 points are framed as commitments, and a serious country does not lightly sign up to commitments, binding or not.

It's also worth noting that the text concerns itself almost entirely with the rights of migrants. To the extent the people of destination countries are considered, it's with a perfunctory note that their concerns should be addressed, but not listened to.

There is absolutely no benefit to Irish people in this document, but there is a lot of risks. Our government should absolutely not sign up to this. The Irish government can continue to set its own migration policy without this document in any case.

From the actual compact:

Objectives for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration
(1) Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based
policies
(2) Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their
country of origin
(3) Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
(4) Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
(5) Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
(6) Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
(7) Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
(8) Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
(9) Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
(10) Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international
migration
(11) Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

Your continual assertion that the compact is to facilitate mass migration appears to be false at best. See point (2) above. Could you stop repeatedly using the phrase "Mass migration"? Try to make your argument by using evidence not by using high frequency of repetition.

Also:

National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine
their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction,
in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish
between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and
policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different
national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in
accordance with international law.

So States are soverign to determine their migration policy. The compact just insures that problems that cause migration are identified and minimized if possible. And that migration is made safer for people and easier for States to manage.

demfad · 06-12-2018 4:52pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The Polish state has not existed since the 10th century. That's simply a historical lie.

The Polish state dates from the period directly after World War I.

Do mean to say the idea of a Polish state has existed since the 10th century? Because that's an entirely different thing.

If you tell us that a Polish state has existed since the 10th century, then Ruthenia and Galicia and all manner of other "states" are "states" too.

Except that they aren't.

The Islamic caliphate of Spain would be a "state". Israel would be a state with a history lasting thousands of years. Never mind that it was formed in 1948.

I was in the German museum in Berlin and judging by European maps "Poland" surrounded by Russia, Austria and Germany disappeared many times over the last 1000 years.

Look at our corner of the world: how many waves of people have migrated West to here?
Before the recent wave of migrants we had English, Celts, and many waves pre Celtic. Same in Britain: The British Celts migrating to Brittany in France, Anglo Saxons into Britain, Picts in Scotland and Scotus (Irish) as well as British and Anglo Saxon.

The argument against migration taht it hasn't happened throughout history is completely bogus yet right wingers whine when the United Nations do not take their prejudiced views on migration into international migration pacts.

MrMaki · 06-12-2018 5:27pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The Polish state has not existed since the 10th century. That's simply a historical lie.

The Polish state dates from the period directly after World War I.

Do mean to say the idea of a Polish state has existed since the 10th century? Because that's an entirely different thing.

If you tell us that a Polish state has existed since the 10th century, then Ruthenia and Galicia and all manner of other "states" are "states" too.

Except that they aren't.

The Islamic caliphate of Spain would be a "state". Israel would be a state with a history lasting thousands of years. Never mind that it was formed in 1948.

It is not a lie. it is a historical fact.
Country Poland was firstly formed in late 6th century and since 9th century existed under name "Polania", then late 10th century "Polania" and the king and people were christianized, and since then "Polska ( Poland)" is existing under this name. Word "Polska" was used by Vatikan scribes since late 10th century.

While Ruthenia and Galicia people were from many different countries in Europe, majority Polish people were from one area where Slovians lived,

This is something that can help you to understand Polish history better.

https://youtu.be/2DrXgj1NwN8

and here is some information about Polish borders.

https://youtu.be/CvDRz9HFfSU

RandomName2 · 06-12-2018 6:13pm

hill16bhoy wrote: »

In 2017, Germany recorded its lowest crime rate since 1992.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-crime-rate-migration-antisemitism-horst-seehofer-a8343226.html

And as if to prove my point about cherry-picking, or if we are being generous, bias confirmation, for the sake of providing an argument that is centrally defined by an exaggerated view of the threat of particular political spheres.

You provide one source. I shall do a little better.

First, the total number of asylum seekers in Germany by the end of 2016 was up 490 per cent compared with 2014.
Almost 300,000 crimes (9 per cent of the total) were linked to refugees/asylum-seekers in 2016, up 42 per cent year-on-year.
Federal statistics indicate that, of almost 4,000 rapes recorded in the years 2015 and 2016, the percentage of non-national perpetrators jumped in that time from 33 to 38 per cent.
A new study this week showed that, in the two-year period to end-2016, the number of refugees in the state of Lower Saxony (population 7 million), jumped by 117 per cent to 163,000, while refugee crime suspects jumped by 242 per cent. Put another way, crimes with a refugee suspect jumped from four per cent in 2014 to 13 per cent two years later.

Irish Times

Violent crime rose by about 10 percent in 2015 and 2016, a study showed. It attributed more than 90 percent of that to young male refugees.

Reuters

There's a BBC source which I won't bother quoting as it says the same thing and comes from the same root source.

The number of suspected crimes by refugees, asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants rose to 174,438 in 2016 — an increase of 52.7 per cent, according to the interior ministry.

The Telegraph

A nice graph

There's another graph by the Wall Street Journal that I can't share as it's behind a paywall, but I will lovingly type out the figures into a table for your benefit

Share of foreign nationals among 2017 crime suspects
Crime | Percentage
Pickpocketing | 74.4
Forgery of documents | 55.4
Burglaries |41.3
Rapes and sexual assaults |37
All types | 34.7
Foreigner as % of population | 12.8

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Sweden's overall crime rate has held steady since 2005. The commonly-used trope about the rape rate exploding due to Muslim immigration is long-debunked bull****.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786

About 58% of men convicted in Sweden of rape and attempted rape over the past five years were born abroad, according to data from Swedish national TV.

bbc

Quite honestly I find the attempt to exclude molestation and sexual assault from sex crime statistics a little bit slimy.

In the Swedish Crime Survey (Nationella trygghetsundersökningen - NTU), 2.4 per cent of the population (16 – 79 years of age), corresponding to approximately 181,000 persons, state that they had been exposed to sex offences in 2016. This is an increase as compared with 2015, when 1.7 per cent stated that they had been exposed. The level of sex offences remained relatively stable during the period 2005 – 2012, but after that there has been an increase. The estimated number of incidents is 654,000, which is significantly more than any other year. However, as the results have shown considerable variations throughout the years, the results of any single year should be interpreted carefully.

bra

hill16bhoy · 06-12-2018 7:57pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

And as if to prove my point about cherry-picking, or if we are being generous, bias confirmation, for the sake of providing an argument that is centrally defined by an exaggerated view of the threat of particular political spheres.

You provide one source. I shall do a little better.

Irish Times

Reuters

There's a BBC source which I won't bother quoting as it says the same thing and comes from the same root source.

The Telegraph

A nice graph

There's another graph by the Wall Street Journal that I can't share as it's behind a paywall, but I will lovingly type out the figures into a table for your benefit

Share of foreign nationals among 2017 crime suspects
Crime | Percentage
Pickpocketing | 74.4
Forgery of documents | 55.4
Burglaries |41.3
Rapes and sexual assaults |37
All types | 34.7
Foreigner as % of population | 12.8

bbc

Quite honestly I find the attempt to exclude molestation and sexual assault from sex crime statistics a little bit slimy.

bra

Sweden doesn't record crime statistics based on ethnicity.

There are a number of reasons why the published sexual crime rate is higher in Sweden than in other countries.

Chief among them is the criteria for what is classed as sexual crime, which is broader than in other countries.

There is also a stronger culture of reporting sexual crime in Sweden than elsewhere, which is an excellent thing, not a bad thing.

My experience of discussions such as this tells me that a high proportion of anti-immigrant posters have a strong dislike of such a reporting culture, as misogynism tends to go hand in hand with dislike of immigrants.

There's also a fantastical leap on the part of those who tell us that Sweden is a supposed rape hotspot, and that Muslims are solely to blame for this.

Other countries have lots of Muslims too, yet have far lower published rates of sexual crime.

So, you expect us to believe that Muslims in Sweden are uniquely obsessed with raping women in a way that Muslims in other countries so clearly aren't.

What is the basis you have for such a conclusion?

This article systematically demolishes the Sweden rape myth propaganda narrative being pushed by the extreme right. It's particularly well sourced.

I'd advise you to read it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/

UN Migration Pact Ireland's Position?

Comments