I see where you are coming from, and if it works, great. But many Syrians did fight against the regime...the figures so far are 350'000 people died, and these figures are thought to be underquoted, and the real figure is much higher. Aside from isis,you had the Nusra Front,Tahir Al-Sham. the Free Syrian Army etc. and many more. Sure, a lot of Syrians fought and died for their Country. Its nothing to do with what Syrian Refugees would or not do for Germany, thats irrelevant.Maybe at some stage the EU ( US etc) might get involved with the Regime with some kind of proposals that you mention.....would be a good thing, if it happened and worked, for sure. But personally, I can't see it with the present regime. Assad has already said that when the eventual rebuilding starts, the US will not be allowed to take part, they are to be excluded completely. Plus you have actors involved, Russia, China etc. Its spread far beyond Syria at this stage.
Absolutely 100%...
Interesting points, thanks. In terms of the 700,000 who have returned since 2018, the overwhelming majority who are women and children, I assume most of them were married. Did the men stay in Syria all along which would suggest there was no real threat for those particular people, or if the men are abroad and still feel threatened why would they allow their wives and children go back now?
It makes no sense to me. Not looking for an answer, I understand it's very complex but I can't figure that out.
Well, I wouldn't write the regime a black cheque for a lump sum up front! It would be staggered payments linked to targets met: ultimately how many Syrians returned home, with funds released as those targets are met. Both the regime and the "refugees" would require payments. I agree that the instinct will be for the regime to reward loyalists, rather than forgive traitors, but that is why the EU needs to present some different incentives. The status quo of disaffected fighting age Syrian males residing in EU states is no benefit to the EU. A foreign based enclave of Syrians funding dissent, unrest and instability in Syria is of no benefit to the Syrian regime. The Syrian regime has won - diplomatic recognition and economic backing/bribes should allow for both groups (Syrian regime & EU) to achieve their aims after the end of out and out violence.
I can see the argument for why they would not be conscripted to fight for the Syrian regime they disagree with. But why then did these men not fight for one of the factions fighting to overthrow the regime, if their country and its future was so dear to them? If they were pacifists, why don't they return to rebuild their beloved homeland after the end of violence? Is there any evidence these men would risk more for Germany than they were prepared to risk for Syria?
It won't make much difference but anyone in Donegal should never set foot in his establishments again. Support the businesses that don't break our laws.
think of all the money he’s saved by employing them, at minimum wage or under... 1,200 euros is fûck all, he’s saved multiples of that cash, it’s in fact probably a days takings for one establishment ... no sort of deterrent whatsoever.... it will have cost the state multiples more to investigate, charge, prosecute / convict him... fines of 133 euros per person..Jesus.. he’s still up on the deal...
Meanwhile in Poland the government continue to build a border fence after 6,000 immigrants tried to enter in the last month alone from Belarus after the Belarusian government handed out visas to Iraqi's and Afghans, let them fly in and then sent them on their way towards the EU.
Fair play to the Polish government 👍
The breeches of the EU's border's are happening on a daily basis.
That terrorists of all ilks and shades have infiltrated their host countrys, is beyond a shadow of doubt, and their infiltration was with one and only one aim and plan, IE:- Terrorism.
A massive payment by the EU etc,in return for a general amnesty for all those men of fighting age etc. would be a very good solution, will be very acceptable to the regime.....for sure!!! But realistically, once the regime receives the much needed cash, what do you think wlil happen?
Not too sure will it be acceptable to the "beneficiaries" though...and genuinely, I could not see too many accepting it...my opinion, based on my own experienced while there. Had there been regime change, then OK, it might stand a chance. But not now as things stand, its not the kind of "Forgive and forget " society. Anyone who left, has crossed a line. And your remark about Loyalists is proof of that. This does not take from the fact that there are reports that some have returned to certain areas, but I have no first hand knowledge or proof of that as of yet.
The comment about becoming as German as the Germans thenselves is true of any Muslim moving from an Islamic Country to a non Islamic one, and not confined to Syria. ( but this is a different issue , even if it is true and reinforces your view )
The point about them not being willing to fight or work for their own country, why would they fight for their host country.....well first and foremost, is the fact that there was a large % of the population wanted change, and with good reason. So why would this % be prepared to fight and die for the regime??? The opposite is what happened, civil war. So now theres a choice: One to fight for the regime, or two, fight against it. ( you can add isis into the mix also) Its not a question, or even close, to people refusing to fight for their Country. The ones who left did the right thing, absolutely 100%, and if I had been in their position, I'd do the same thing. And remember, lots of them did fight and die for their Country. This story still has a long way to go IMHO.
It's awful but the government have already signalled they don't care with the 17,000 illegals who are being given access to Irish citizenship later this year.
A €1200 fine is pathetic. Over 9 employees, he probably saves €1200 every week in the wages they are willing to accept vs the wages Irish workers would demand for the same work. The court is just ticking a box here. The clear message to other business owners is to give them a green light to take the chance they will never get caught. Because even if they are, the punishment is next to nothing.
I think the concerns of those Syrian "deserters" could be assuaged by the EU offering an aid package conditional upon a general amnesty for deserters (within reason - some of these 'refugees' are war criminals). It would be in the interests of the regime to have young men working on rebuilding the country rather than languishing in jails they don't have. However, I'm making that judgement from my perspective - from the perspective of the Assad regime, any sort of mercy to hostile factions while failing to reward loyalist factions may only result in increased instability. Being a successful dictatorship, they probably have a better sense for what is realistic in the context of Syria.
As for your latter comment, their deep attachment to their homeland is exactly why their mass migration into Europe is a recipe for disaster. It's implausible to believe they are just as German as the Germans themselves, while at the same time they are homesick for the middle east and have sufficient numbers to resist assimilation. The Germans wont believe it. The Syrian ethnic enclaves wont believe it.
Either way, whatever their deep love and attachment for their homeland, these guys weren't willing to fight or work for their own country. It's not realistic to pretend they will fight or work for someone else's.
Le Pen isn’t going to waltz into power at all, Macron is just as handy with the rhetoric about French national identity, similar to the example of Denmark given earlier in the thread and the emphasis they place on a Danish identity -
Theres no ignorance of any perceived “economic fallout” from growing numbers of asylum seekers or refugees though. It’s true that there isn’t a bottomless pit of public money, but it doesn’t work the way you’re trying to suggest either as though providing funding for supports for one group of people means taking funding from another group of people, and you’re presenting it as a false dilemma between increasing taxes or cutting someone’s benefits. By that logic one could argue that the Government being expected to fund the Mica Redress Scheme means cutting someone else’s benefits (I have a suspicion you don’t care all that much about either tbh) -
They could take that estimated figure and double it and still it wouldn’t come close to the final cost, much like the rising cost of the children’s hospital.
It is fair to say alright that providing for asylum seekers and refugees does place an enormous financial burden on the State, but it’s done by way of fulfilling the State’s human rights obligations. The cost of direct provision for example last time I checked costs the State about €1.3m per month, just checked again there, it’s likely to have only increased since 2019 -
I have no idea of the financial breakdown for individual asylum seekers or refugees but I can say with a fair degree of confidence that analysing the cost of any group of refugees or asylum seekers will have been only guesswork and exaggeration, so I’d take those calculations with a grain of salt. The figures in the article above aren’t even necessary to refute your claim that they receive more than a normal unemployed person, it’s just yet another false dilemma you’re presenting with the whole idea of funding an asylum seeker or refugee means we can’t fund benefits for someone else. It’s ridiculous to suggest anything is being ignored by anyone because they don’t share your perspective or don’t see things the way you do, and certainly I have no interest in whether you’re either racist or bigoted, I’m definitely not interested in turning you into a martyr.
As it happens though, people who are providing their services to the State are entitled to be paid for their services. They pay taxes too, and that makes them taxpayers, same as plenty of immigrants who are also taxpayers, and all you’re doing is trying to pit one group in Irish society against each other, ignoring the reality that people know better. They may not know everything there is to know about taxation, immigration, employment, welfare and all the rest of it, but they’re not stupid either.
"A businessman has been fined €1,200 for employing foreign nationals without work permits after a Garda blitz on a number of takeaways in Donegal.
A total of nine foreign nationals were found working in three different premises belonging to Raj Bir on the Inishowen Peninsula.
None of those interviewed by Gardaí and inspectors from the Workplace Relations Commission had work permits.
Two of those arrested were people living in Direct Provision in Limerick who had travelled to Donegal for work.
The case was taken against Mr Bir by the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation."
"He fined Mr Bir a total of €1,200 on four of the charges and took the others into consideration."
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/businessman-found-guilty-of-operating-illegal-takeaway-worker-scam-1191299.html
Do you ever just read an article and realise that the idiots are the ones who aren't breaking the law given how small the chances of being caught are and what a minor slap on the wrist you'll get if you actually get caught? I wonder will there be similar charges for others when the amnesty scheme comes in, surely if they're going to give this man a slap on the wrist then all people who have profited from illegally employing people should equally be charged. I hope this wasn't the only fine he had to pay and revenue come down on him like a ton of bricks
The logic behind it is fairly simple -
One specific type of permission to live in Ireland is known as permission to remain. This is a status that is granted at the discretion of the Minister for Justice and Equality. Leave to remain may be granted to people who have been refused a refugee or subsidiary protection declaration but who are not returned home for humanitarian or other compelling reasons.
You would be surprised really, I know quite a lot of them, and if it was possible for them to return, they would. And if the war had never happened, they would never have left. Of course there was always a a % who moved abroad to work, but they never lost sight of the fact that they were Syrian, and Syria was their real home. Same with Turkish workers in Germany ( and broadly the EU ) During the summer holidays ( school finished) you will see mega queues on the borders as they return home. They never lose sight of who and what they are. I've lived in Syria, and I can full well understand their deep attachment to their Country.
It’s as though you imagine you’re talking to a child. I gave my opinion on the poll, I didn’t expect you would take my opinion seriously when it doesn’t agree with your own. I’m fine with that.
Thankfully, having one Boardsie agreeing with another Boardsie is not proof that something is true. Especially when both Boardsies refuse to defend their claims with evidence, instead opting for vague statements like "giving it a cursory glance shows this to be dubious"
All that is required is to read it. A majority want to bring in more than 250, but the same with more people on top want it limited to 1000. It's pretty simple. You just want to read the first part while ignoring the last. That's if one accepts the poll as representative. I don't and One eye Jack outlined the whys very well.
Or tinfoil-hat theories where our incompetent government is somehow competent enough to control our media.
No tinfoil hattism here. No control involved either. It's basic PR, lobbying and so forth. Polls are very commonly used in this area, either to judge public reaction or to foreshadow it. The SIMI motor trade crowd do it a fair bit. As have the vintners over theyears.
And lo it happens...
Good news! So the government have upped their committent of taking in 230 Afgan refugees to 500 more. Going by the Journals poll, it looks like they have given the Irish people what they wanted.
And going by the poll which you put such stead in the same Irish peeeeple don't want any more than a thousand of them, and as I noted before these are Afghan refugees fleeing from an actual on the nightly news current tyranny where one would expect far more natural sympathy for their plight. As I said hardly a ringing endorsement for an Irish welcome for refugees. For illegal and quasi legal migrants I suspect that welcome would be a lot less open.
I would be gobsmacked if such a referendum like the one on the birthright loophole was ever put to the Irish electorate again.
I think the result would be different in a referendum making decisions on such a small number in a poll is not good policy .
Thankfully, having one Boardsie agreeing with another Boardsie is not proof that something is true. Especially when both Boardsies refuse to defend their claims with evidence, instead opting for vague statements like "giving it a cursory glance shows this to be dubious". Or tinfoil-hat theories where our incompetent government is somehow competent enough to control our media.
Good news! So the government have upped their committent of taking in 230 Afgan refugees to 500 more. Going by the Journals poll, it looks like they have given the Irish people what they wanted. To quote a previous poster, who was very sympathetic to the Afgan plight, they are fleeing a coup and rogue state out for blood where more support and sympathy would naturally be expected. These are people who are fleeing genuine and current danger from a rogue and harsh state.
If you are not interested in backing up your claims then don't make them in the first place. This thread contains enough unsubstantiated allegations as it is. Claiming that The Journals article of Most Irish people want the government to take in more than 230 Afghan refugees is "stretching beyond what the poll represents" is complete nonsense when the literal title and results of the poll say "Most want more Afghan refugees".
Pointing to the sampling method used by the pollster as evidence of wrongdoing is incorrect. Yes, the sample size of 1,000 consisted of responses of a listed of invited respondents of 5,000 panellists. What you left out was that the 1000 were selected according to their gender, age, region, political interest, past voting behaviour, religious adherence and educational attainment- Their responses were weighted according to these variables in line with the CSO and exit polls. This is done so that sample of 1000 is more representative of the general population than the original 5000. This sampling method is common. It was used extensively in the last Irish election, for example: https://anthonybmasters.medium.com/a-methodological-summary-of-2020-irish-election-polling-387a9eeb497d
If you cannot defend your comment that the "inputs were manipulated to produce the output that those commissioning the survey wanted", then don't expect us to take your posts seriously. Similarly, we can dismiss your comment that the poll was "selection bias in action".
I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to live down there especially after they lived a while in Europe, but where they want to live and where they have a right to live may be different things altogether.
One reason that the men are reluctant to return home is that a high % of able bodied men ( fighting age, if you like ) left because they dd not wish to fight and die for the Regime, and they literally escaped from Syria anyway they could. So now, unless you have a lot of money or good connection's, you will be in big trouble when you return. And will go either into prison or the army. Either case, your future does not look good. Most of the heavy fighting may be finished ( for now) but the war has ravished the Country,and inflation is another big problem there. So not an easy (or safe) country to live in. Maybe in another 4-5 years..... maybe. But if the conditions improved, then I'm pretty sure that most Syrian Refugees would prefer to ba back home, especially the older ones.
Interesting statistics here ( Warning, it's from the Russian Ministry of Defense and may be triggering for some of the more sensitive souls on this thread 😀)
Few points:
Merkel originally stated in 2015/2016 that the Syrian refugees were expected to go home when this was over. While I 100% think she was lying, conditions are now allowing for this. Let's she if she makes any moves on this when she I presume moves into some sort of leadership role in the EU following her exit from domestic German politics.
Since July 2018, Over 700,000 people have returned home from foreign states, mainly Jordan and Lebanon.
There are still just under 7 million refugees in 43 states of which 1.3 million from 15 states have expressed a desire to return home.
The vast majority of those returning are women and children, seems to be a severe lack of men willing to return for some reason?
Syria is clearly stabilizing, the war is over and Europe should be making preparations for the people to return to rebuild their country. I believe Europe should help with financial aid. I highly doubt that the current crop of politicians in Western Europe will facilitate this though.
Anyway, overall an interesting article with detailed statistics, although with some errors.
Le Pen has set the trend.
The others know that Le Pen will waltz into power if they continue the shytology as more and more ordinary native French and even legitimate immigrants working there from other places are fed up of all the attacks on the French secular and relaxed christian way of life.
And you are either ignorant or willfully ignore the economic fallout from growing numbers of asylum seekers and refugees.
There isn't a bottomless pit of public money and increased spending on all the supports necessary for asylum seekers/refugees means someone else has to pay.
You either increase taxes or cut someone else's benefits.
It is simple economic fact.
And asylum seekers and refugees, especially the poorly educated ones we have been getting, add a huge drain on state resources.
Someone some time back put up the actual spend involved in housing some Syrian (or supposedly Syrian) refugees in Clare.
The cost is astronomical when you factor in housing, medical cards, dentristry charges, transport costs, education and training supports and all these fancy integration courses.
They get more than a native normal unemployed person, and we have enough of the long term will not work unemployed without adding to it.
Of course all of this is ignored by people like you and anyone that raises it is lambasted as racist and bigoted.
And funnily enough a lot of the ones ignoring the costs are the very ones financially benefiting from these asylum seeker/refugee people.
In other words the ones with their gobs in the taxpayer funded troughs.
I dont see the logic of allowing asylum seekers into the country who fail to get refugee status getting residence and being unemployed . I have no objection with those who come to work .
Well obviously it's not the immigrants coming to take our medical cards! But there is a sizeable amount of them that don't contribute al all or don't contribute enough hence stretching the HSE budget thinner. The thresholds for mean testing for medical cards are not set in stone, they are tailored to fit the budget.
If you ask me, a well off or even wealthy OAP should be able to enjoy "free" healthcare in their retirement days (not free because they contributed all their active life), whereas an immigrant that didn't contribute squat should not. This will be quite fair, wouldn't it? If only life were fair...
Reminds me of what my uncle used to say about bad drivers on the road - Don't blame them, blame the fcuking idiot that gave them their licence.
That’s somewhat besides the point though, isn’t it? Your original point was that I didn’t seem to have any issue with the high rate of unemployment among non-EU nationals in Ireland. That has nothing to do with the number of people across the EU who are already employed.
It’s that sort of rhetoric is used in the examples I gave above of Leo and his determination to lead “the party for people who get up in the morning”, or Boris with his rallying declaration that “big corporations are holding wages down because they have access to so many workers from other countries”, and “the UK needs to think about how we control immigration.”
I’m not in control of Irelands social and economic policies, are you? It’s politicians who are responsible for their countries economic and social policies. You can’t hold immigrants responsible for things they have no control over, when they have even less influence over economic and social policies than the people Leo and Boris are dog whistling at without explicitly referring to the unemployed or immigrants. They let your imagination do it’s thing if you’re already given to thinking you’re experiencing the negative impact on society of the unemployed and immigrants, and if it weren’t for them, society would be so much better.
The tide might be starting to turn... people are just getting fed up of terrorism and its importation. europol website makes for grim reading, the pandemic is the only reason for a fall off in attacks, planned attacks and arrests, before the pandemic there was a huge rise in Islamist terrorism in the EU... last decade was worrying..post pandemic I’d think there will be a continuation,
Lots of talk from the main French presidential candidates and potential candidates. Whoever gets elected is going to finally have to implement proper policies, the French people won't put up with it for much longer.
"Mr Barnier claimed his role in negotiating the EU-UK Brexit trade deal gave him an insight into the political dangers posed by immigration not shared by many in the Brussels elite.
“I negotiated the Brexit deal, and this is what makes me different from the rest of those guys in Brussels. I don't want another Brexit.
“What is tough and serious is a problem of migration which are not controlled,” he said."
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8078e6b81295c08b3df3e770f66e931c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/589515102ac9643de8128b44e62aa24b.svg)
