Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Are we a nation of hypocrites?

2

Comments

  • #32
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Deprive kids of fathers Vs Allow citizenship for anyone who can reproduce on schedule.

    Thats the crux of the issue.

    But are you going to be the one to tell a kid he won't be seeing his dad again.

    Here is the logic of your argument.

    Man has a family, he has a kid. The guy goes out one night gets in serious trouble with the law which results in a court appearance and a jail sentence. The plea is basically that a child has a right to a father so the judge should not jail him at all as by jailing him the the judge is depriving a child of his father.

    That is the logic of the argument and it does not stand up at all and in fact would be laughed out of court.


  • #33
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    jank wrote: »
    This whole 'breaking up families' is a ploy.

    Yes, it is. Its a pre-meditated ploy designed to produce a citizen who can't be denied its birth parents.
    Its used by people who want to game the system and go live in another country.

    And it has worked and does work.

    Because the new kid is as much a citizen as you.
    And to deny one citizen child of his/her parents sets a precedent.

    What of the case where its a foreign woman arriving and getting knocked up and giving birth, should she be separated from her child and sent home ??


  • #34
    Eutow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭Eutow


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Yes, it is. Its a pre-meditated ploy designed to produce a citizen who can't be denied its birth parents.
    Its used by people who want to game the system and go live in another country.

    And it has worked and does work.

    Because the new kid is as much a citizen as you.
    And to deny one citizen child of his/her parents sets a precedent.

    What of the case where its a foreign woman arriving and getting knocked up and giving birth, should she be separated from her child and sent home ??

    She would return home with the child.


  • #35
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Yes, it is. Its a pre-meditated ploy designed to produce a citizen who can't be denied its birth parents.
    Its used by people who want to game the system and go live in another country.

    And it has worked and does work.

    Because the new kid is as much a citizen as you.
    And to deny one citizen child of his/her parents sets a precedent.

    What of the case where its a foreign woman arriving and getting knocked up and giving birth, should she be separated from her child and sent home ??

    The anchor baby ploy no longer works. As children have been manipulated by their parents in order to remain in countries, which is very likely what has happened here in this case too.

    Children have no rights to their parents, ask any single mom who raises a child on her own or any child who has a parent in prison.

    There are plenty of anchor kids in the US whose parents have been deported. If they allow it then it will continue on in numbers. If the family want to stay together then they can bring the child with them back home. This guy is not married to this woman, has committed fraud on his applications, and has a violent criminal history. Tell what credibility is there?


  • #36
    minidazzler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,650 ✭✭✭✭minidazzler


    I'd be nice if he got hit by a car on the way to the airport so he can't cause any more damage once he gets here :) Alas, that won't be the case.

    He should absolutely be turfed out. This Irish having a special immigrant status according to ourselves is just bull. We expect everyone to be delighted that we'll grace them with our presence.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    jank wrote: »
    Here is the logic of your argument.

    Man has a family, he has a kid. The guy goes out one night gets in serious trouble with the law which results in a court appearance and a jail sentence. The plea is basically that a child has a right to a father so the judge should not jail him at all as by jailing him the the judge is depriving a child of his father.

    That is the logic of the argument and it does not stand up at all and in fact would be laughed out of court.

    Would be humourous but for the fact that it is the de facto response by the defending solicitor whenever a female defendant is within an ass' roar of a custodial sentence


  • #38
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Deprive kids of fathers Vs Allow citizenship for anyone who can reproduce on schedule.

    Thats the crux of the issue.

    But are you going to be the one to tell a kid he won't be seeing his dad again.

    Just get him out of Australia first,he can always apply for residence in Oz on compassionate grounds once he gets to Ireland.


  • #39
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    jank wrote: »
    Here is the logic of your argument.

    Man has a family, he has a kid. The guy goes out one night gets in serious trouble with the law which results in a court appearance and a jail sentence. The plea is basically that a child has a right to a father so the judge should not jail him at all as by jailing him the the judge is depriving a child of his father.

    That is the logic of the argument and it does not stand up at all and in fact would be laughed out of court.

    Indeed it would be laughed out of court, since you'd be requesting something entirely different altogether.

    You'd be requesting that criminal convictions be quashed because someone has a child.
    That is not analogous to someone in an immigration case using a child as a pawn for citizenship.

    Just because two cases have one common factor (absence of a father in this case) doesn't make them the same.


  • #40
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    The anchor baby ploy no longer works.

    Really ?? ..... could have fooled me. Take a taxi next time you're in Dublin.


  • #41
    Arthur Beesley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Arthur Beesley


    This scumbag should be sent back to Ireland. Unfortunately we have to take him back. Pity.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Really ?? ..... could have fooled me. Take a taxi next time you're in Dublin.
    Showing you true colours now chum!


  • #43
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    Showing you true colours now chum!

    Yes those of a reasoned person.




    Now if you'll excuse me Ive a Klan meeting to attend.


  • #44
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Ive a Klan meeting to attend.

    Wouldn't surprise me.:rolleyes:


  • #45
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    Wouldn't surprise me.:rolleyes:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU


  • #46
    Steppenwolfe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭Steppenwolfe


    We need another facebook page. To petition for him to be denied entry when he comes back. Sounds like a right scumbag. Sadly he's one of our own and it won't work.


  • #47
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Yes those of a reasoned person.




    Now if you'll excuse me Ive a Klan meeting to attend.

    It's been postponed till next tuesday because the Grand Wizards mom is feeling sick,I was supposed to send out the reminders about that on friday,but,like my pointy hat,it Went over my head.

    White Powder.


  • #48
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Indeed it would be laughed out of court, since you'd be requesting something entirely different altogether.

    You'd be requesting that criminal convictions be quashed because someone has a child.
    That is not analogous to someone in an immigration case using a child as a pawn for citizenship.

    Just because two cases have one common factor (absence of a father in this case) doesn't make them the same.

    Yet, the main point of argument of the reason he is in detention is because he over stayed his visa and that is illegal. The usual punishment is a flight home, a bill for the flight and a three year ban form Australia. You said initially that he should be granted PR after he served whatever time is due to him. So in essence we are both in agreement so that he should be kicked out where he can reapply in 3 years time for PR.

    And do we have to even mention his initial visa application was fraudulent, which was also illegal? The guy is trouble no matter what way one spins it.


  • #49
    Paramite Pie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Paramite Pie


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    But are you going to be the one to tell a kid he won't be seeing his dad again.

    Lot's of kids have dads who live over seas, usually working. It's a four year sentence, not an entire lifetime. Small price to pay for destroying someone's life. It's not the kids choice.

    Let's worry about the original victim here and his family, who I imagine has sustained severe emotional trauma and medical costs due to their son's condition.

    Denis Franklin will never have kids. He was robbed of an entire life.


  • #50
    mandrake04
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    jank wrote: »
    Yet, the main point of argument of the reason he is in detention is because he over stayed his visa and that is illegal. The usual punishment is a flight home, a bill for the flight and a three year ban form Australia. You said initially that he should be granted PR after he served whatever time is due to him. So in essence we are both in agreement so that he should be kicked out where he can reapply in 3 years time for PR.

    And do we have to even mention his initial visa application was fraudulent, which was also illegal? The guy is trouble no matter what way one spins it.

    Overstaying the visa is only a side issue but not the reason why he is in detention (although that is why he was picked up). Overstaying the visa carries a 3 year ban for temporary visas but not permanent visas. I know several lads who overstayed and were granted PR through ENS PR and PR spousal visas when children was involved.

    The minister intervened because the 'applicant' failed the Character Test which is that those with a criminal record must have have served less than 12 months imprisonment to be considered for migration.... the applicant had a 2 year suspended sentence for the 1st assault and 4 years custodial sentence for the drunken assault 5 months later which left a man in a vegetive state to this day.

    There's no way the minister could allow this guy to stay, you know the whole hoo haa over alcohol violence as of late. Imagine the uproar if this guy injured someone and immigration had granted him a visa.

    The MRT ruled that with the kid that he could stay, there's a lot of talk of judges and barristers. An MRT is not like a real court with a real judge it is a tribunal that looks at the decision of granting of a visa.

    If he had failed the MRT he could have simply appealed it but if he wins the MRT (like he did) it's up to the Minister discretion to overturn it and if it is overturned there's NO appeal. That's the way it played out.


  • #51
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,266 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    Ok, so it's a choice between a scummer getting deported and coming back here vs further inflicting him on the Australian people....
    Is there any option 3?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    If it was a case of a hard-working man who simply overstayed his visa then I can see how there'd be a case to support. The fact is however that he's a violent thug who obviously hasn't changed a bit since he was released if he's already been done over there for assaulting a woman. I can see why the Australian government don't want him there and who can blame them to be honest?


  • #53
    mandrake04
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭mandrake04


    jank wrote: »
    The usual punishment is a flight home, a bill for the flight and a three year ban form Australia. You said initially that he should be granted PR after he served whatever time is due to him. So in essence we are both in agreement so that he should be kicked out where he can reapply in 3 years time for PR.

    Sorry I forgot to clarify this point in my previous post.

    You are assuming that he will carry a 3 year ban for overstaying, like in my other post the 3 year ban does not apply to PR visa or applications that might affect Australian citizens. (as this case does) but any application involving a criminal record still requires discretion. There might need to be a change in immigration minister or even government before he could be considered.


  • #54
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Paramite Pie wrote: »
    Lot's of kids have dads who live over seas, usually working. It's a four year sentence, not an entire lifetime. Small price to pay for destroying someone's life. It's not the kids choice.

    Let's worry about the original victim here and his family, who I imagine has sustained severe emotional trauma and medical costs due to their son's condition.

    Denis Franklin will never have kids. He was robbed of an entire life.

    I never argued that he shouldn't be jailed. If he has a sentence awaiting him he should be grabbed as soon as his foot touches tarmac.
    (didn't I say this in my very first post...checks)


    Ah yes there it is. "He is indeed a scumbag. If he has jail time waiting for him, ship him back here to serve it before returning. "


  • #55
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    jank wrote: »
    Yet, the main point of argument of the reason he is in detention is because he over stayed his visa and that is illegal. The usual punishment is a flight home, a bill for the flight and a three year ban form Australia. You said initially that he should be granted PR after he served whatever time is due to him. So in essence we are both in agreement so that he should be kicked out where he can reapply in 3 years time for PR.

    And do we have to even mention his initial visa application was fraudulent, which was also illegal? The guy is trouble no matter what way one spins it.


    No you don't have to mention his visa application, I can actually read.

    He's a criminal up for serious assault and yes he lied on his visa, he may not be the nicest of characters and may be well deserving of harsh punishment. Unfortunately the justice we'd like to dish out is often limited by law, and in this case the issue of the child gets in the way.

    Like it or not the kid is Australian by birth and nobody can force it to be moved somewhere else and, since theres no custody laws presently saying otherwise, the kid has a right to his father as much as the father has a right to the kid.

    Yes it sucks, yes it a manipulative tactic used worldwide including here, but tough shyt, thats the law for you.


  • #56
    ofcork
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭ofcork


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    It's just people being dopes on Facebook in relation to "one of their own". It is not an exclusively Irish thing.

    I remember the case of that poor young fella from Limerick. Awfully sad case.

    I recall that case as well as there was another guy killed in cork around the same time in a random attack,amazing these guys can go away and make new lives must have no conscience.


  • #57
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    ofcork wrote: »
    I recall that case as well as there was another guy killed in cork around the same time
    Yeh in the same area. Christian Scully was the guy, who unfortunately did not survive the assault.


  • #58
    ofcork
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,583 ✭✭✭ofcork


    At least the people involved in that are still inside I believe.


  • #59
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

    Yes it sucks, yes it a manipulative tactic used worldwide including here, but tough shyt, thats the law for you.

    Yet there is no law stating this.


  • #60
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    jank wrote: »
    Yet there is no law stating this.

    I had a Nigerian work colleague who, along with a Lithuanian (iirc) woman, used this same tactic of making a new citizen to remain here.

    Dont tell me it doesn't happen.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Jamsiek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭Jamsiek


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Yes he should be granted permanent residence, the child has a right to a father. Child has done nothing wrong. Rightly or wrongly, if you knock a girl up in a country you have business with the other partner and the coming child and should be allowed to stay

    Nobody has the right to tell the Australian immigration authorities what they should do. If they don't want him then he only has himself to blame.


Advertisement
Advertisement