jmreire wrote: » Roll on the next GE,,,,,,the sooner the better !!
KevRossi wrote: » SF have historically been very pro-immigration and pro asylum seekers. In fact their policies have usually been the more radical of all parties.
Kivaro wrote: » From the BBC this morning: "People who enter the UK illegally to claim asylum will no longer have the same entitlements as those who arrive legally, under new immigration plans. Home Secretary Priti Patel said those who arrived legally would immediately be given the right to remain in the UK indefinitely." So let me ask you, in order to stop the constantly perilous flow of economic migrants to our borders, does this policy not make sense? Watching the Home Secretary this morning, she talked about the unsustainable numbers of migrants arriving from Europe in order to claim asylum in the UK. She said that those asylum seekers are departing from safe countries in order to gain entry into the UK, which is wrong. If only we had a politician with a backbone like Priti Patel in Ireland.
ThunbergsAreGo wrote: » Watch her be demonised for it
Kivaro wrote: » The BBC presenter was almost crying this morning when she asked the Home Secretary questions about judging asylum seekers based on where they apply for asylum. It was typical BBC. However Priti Patel was well able for her inquisitor by answering in a non-emotional, non-hysterical, and logical manner that was fact-based.
Feadog999 wrote: » I did. But not expecting much. Dear Eoin, Many thanks for your swift reply. While I strongly disagree with the points you made, I very much appreciate the engagement and exchanging of ideas in a friendly manner. It appears you have strong faith in this government to deliver (successfully) such a programme. Something I do not. I think if the Irish enter a country illegally the Irish Government should not lobby for their status to be regularised. Indeed it would be hypocritical, therefore I don't (and many Irish dont) beleive that illegal Irish abroad should be allowed to remain in the new host country. Breaking the law certainly should not be encouraged, especially with generous social programmes. There is a large difference between skilled migration and low skilled / asylum migration. The Irish when traveling abroad are doing so in search of work. They do not (and have not) relied on the generous social programs of their new host country to get by. Indeed, this is a point also parroted by your colleagues in Fine Gael, maybe political parties in Ireland are not as different as we think. There is an existing legal process for skilled people to come here already. The Irish, when abroad, won't get free own door accomodation within four months of arriving, they don't get free physical and mental health care, they don't get free education, they don't get free legal aid. In fact, I live in Ireland and pay taxes here and I don't get any of the above but yet I will end up paying for it. There no possible way that tax income received from these people will cancel out the expenditure implications. There are a plethora of reports showing that low earners in Ireland, in comparison to other European countries, pay very little in income tax and these migrants will not have the updward social mobility in one generation to climb out of this bracket. Therefore, of course it will end up costing a significant amount of money to the tax payer. We already operate in an environment where the Irish tax payer sees absolutely minimal return for their taxes. In fact, I believe that the introduction of a massive influx of low skilled workers (who decide to work) will create a surplus of labour forcing the wages of hard working families down rather than up. Ireland being a rich country with plenty of resources is also something I disagree with. We were approximately €200 billion in the red pre-covid. Likely to climb to €240 billion. A central bank news article yesterday outlined we can't borrow forever and that the programmes announced in budget 21 last year will likely have to be funded through increased in taxes. Let's not forget that Ireland also has the second highest cost of living in the EU - behind Denmark. Insurance, house prices, child care, taxes, general cost of living are significant costs to hard working families as is, without funding such migration programmes. Under the current circumstances there is no way that the housing of these people can be provided for without impacting people already living and working here. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. People are already competing with local authorities and AHBs to buy houses - while I understand you have a different housing policy, we unfortunately are currently operating in a FF/FG/GP system that puts public housing providers in competition with people buying houses. Migration has created some pretty serious issues in other European countries and we would do well not to ignore it. Indeed, Denmark has begun to strip Syrian residents of residency permits and have begun sending some home citing it is now safe to return. Like always, Ireland is late to the party and will be late to the party introducing counteracting policy measures when we eventually have to. Again, going back to the article 27 referendum. I really think the regularisation process totally goes against the vote. And agreeing with it or not, it was a democratic process. However, I realise it also gave future governments power to change it. If you look at the Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll From 2015, 70% of Sinn Fein voters were against taking any migrants with the majority of citizens also against the idea and I think if such a poll was carried out today the general citizen result would be largely the same. As part of the plans, there appears to be no upward ceiling applied to how many people can come / be catered for which of course will only serve to attract more migration. Indeed, there also dosent seem to be any reference to improving the process to let genuine asylum seekers in while denying others or economic migrants. There really seems to be a total lack of evidenced based policy making and analysis present in both the plans and that is my largest worry. That we will rush into such programmes while blindfolded in order to appear as progressive as possible while throwing caution to the wind. I think it will only serve to foster division and social unrest in the future. But who knows, maybe I am wrong. But that is the way it is panning out in other European countries currently. Again, thank you for the engagement and at least I know where Sinn Fein stands.
kildare lad wrote: » Great reply . I wonder why politicians are so oblivious to their constituents when it comes to this subject. Political parties in Ireland can count themselves lucky that there isn't a viable centre right leaning party for the electorate to vote for . The right was non existent in Europe till the EU decided to open its borders up to everyone .
kildare lad wrote: » It'll be a waste of time , sure look at the last election , sinn fein topped the polls and yet fine gael and fianna fail ended up in power again . There's no parties that put Irish citizens first. They're all on this pro mass immigration, pro multicultural bandwagon that's going to have serious social and economic problems that the rest of europe are dealing with now .
jmreire wrote: » In the last election, people did so much vote SinnFein in, ( I'd say that the majority did not even read the Sinn Fein election manifesto!! ) as try and vote FFG out...and it nearly worked. Had Sinn Fein fielded more candidates, they would have won too, so much was the angst and dissatisfaction amogst voters. But what happened ? The two deadly enemies of Irish Politics, buried the hatchet and cobbled together a"Power sharing" agreement rather than form a coalition with Sinn Fein. But the next election???? Now that's the question...Sinn Fein will not make the same mistake a second time of not fielding enough candidates, but will the voters still feel the same way?
Sand wrote: » NGOs have direct access to TDs, ministers and civil servants. NGOs often run 'training courses' which TDs and their staff attend to be 'informed' on the issue. Constituents get no such access or representation. So a TD is always going to be far more influenced by the NGOs than by their constituents. I think its reasonable that the NGO industry/complex is considered a threat the democratic process in Ireland. Certainly they should receive no state funding and no access to politicians or civil servants.
ThunbergsAreGo wrote: » SF are not an alternative though.... They are more of the same
jmreire wrote: » Maybe so, but like I mentioned in my post, the whole thrust of the Sinn Fein vote was to knock FFG of the perch they have occupied for so long, and many who voted for them would not even had read or paid any attention to their election manifesto. The general opinion at the time was, Sinn Fein could not be any worse anyway.
DeadHand wrote: » I’ll tell you an anecdote that I believe reflects the position of Sinn Fein and their voters on mass immigration. I asked an associate after the last election who he had voted for (I shouldn’t have). This is a competent man, but not well versed in politics. He replied SF. I ask why. His reply was “because they’ll get the foreigners out of Ireland”. There’s your SF vote. They are, as a political force, deeply reliant on the ignorance of their voter base.
Deleted User wrote: » It's a way to mirror what happens in the US with lobbies and corporations. The corporations already have direct access to the politicians, and have enormous power here... The NGO's are just another addition to increase that influence, along with all the cheap labor that they provide which can be paid by the taxpayer. TBH I suspect we're seeing another mirror with the US. Instead of looking for the Black/minority votes as what happened in the US, our politicians are importing a disenfranchised underclass that they hope to manipulate into voting for them. After all, offering further benefits and services has worked wonders in the past for Irish people... and I suspect that many Irish are getting tired of those strings attached promises, but the migrants wouldn't be.
TomTomTim wrote: » How does this even work in Ireland when all political parties are selling the same product? It makes sense in America, because it gives Democrats votes, it makes sense in the UK, because it gives the likes of Labor and the Lib Dems votes. I can't make out how it works in the Irish context, where all the parties are pro immigration.
DerekC16 wrote: » Many such cases.
jmreire wrote: » Just as in the Peter Casey case, where he got 330'000 votes, all on just one issue. In my opinion anyway, there is or will be the same "pool" of voiceless voters based on the Immigration issue. Just because they are not highly vocal, does not mean that they do not exist. Casey proved that. Any forward thinking politician would do well to see which way the immigration wind is blowing, and act accordingly.
Esho wrote: » If that's the case, how come the anti- immigration party bombed out at the last election?
Esho wrote: » I think it's more like the NGO attitude chimes with the cancel culture. So politicians are too scared to call out any issue that could be spun as "racist". Remember the Wexford TD who pointed out some facts about the problems asylum seekers are causing truckers? She was branded a racist by the mefia and twitterati. Irish politicians listen to their constitutents- well the ones who get re-elected do.
randd1 wrote: » Prove what? That they can fit into Irish society/culture? Look around you, it does happen. I'm sure you know plenty that do. Most immigrants work and contribute. Or is it that they can't learn a skill here? Can't hold down a job? Can't make themselves useful to society despite their lack of skills/education? Give them a shot. And if they don't contribute, or are unwilling to contribute to Irish society, then they should be sent home.
ThunbergsAreGo wrote: » Cos they are racist scumbags, and other undesirable characteristics
ThunbergsAreGo wrote: » And she got elected, so maybe it chimed
TomTomTim wrote: » Being able to discuss the topic on a national level would be a start. As bad as many European countries may be, there's at least the ability to discuss immigration on the radio or on TV. In Ireland it's the elephant in the room, it can only be discussed positively, anything else is heresy. This kind of mindset is honestly a throw back to the Soviet Union, where any societal issues that can be used against the ideology of the state, must be suppressed and never spoken of. Our masters have clearly learned nothing from the past, as that kind of mindset brought down the Soviet Union.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
