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

Traffickers 'made $3m' on Italy ship

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    nokia69 wrote: »
    because thats how the real world works

    That's cleared that up


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    biko wrote: »
    General focus seems to be on refugees fleeing here while no focus is on the fact that foreign aid is reduced to be able to pay for immigration.
    For instance asylum offices in Sweden, like West Gotaland, gets more money (from Swedish Aid) than the entire country of Moçambique!
    Just imagine what could be done in the 3rd world with all of that money (where everything is a fraction of the price it is in Sweden).

    Funny you should mention Sweden. There's a group of asylum seekers currently threatening to go on hunger strike there.
    A group of 30 asylum seekers spent the night in a cold bus outside a reception centre in the woods south Östersund in central Sweden. They do not want to move into the centre, but demand to be returned to Malmö.

    On Wednesday, Swedish Radio Jämtland spoke to some of the 40 or so asylum seekers, who had arrived on the bus earlier in the day. They said they had not been told where they were going. As they entered the bus in Malmö, in southern Sweden, they expected to be taken to Stockholm, or "max 40 minutes outside" the capital, one of the asylum seekers told the reporter. Instead they spent 15 hours on the bus, arriving to the dark and the cold in village 20 kilometres south of Östersund, where a former military barracks have been turned into a refugee reception centre.



    https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6058405
    Several dozen people seeking asylum in Sweden refused to leave their bus when they found out that they would be living in a tiny town. They demanded to be brought back to a big city, and police refused to evict them from the vehicle.

    The incident happened in Grytan, a småort in central Sweden. The term refers to a small rural community of 50 to 199 residents where houses are built close enough to each other. Grytan, located not far from the city of Östersund, has a housing center for those waiting for their application for asylum to be considered by the authorities.

    The center was the destination of some 40 people, who arrived in the village on Wednesday, but when they saw it they were not happy at all, reports The Local.

    "I am 75 years old and come from the Middle East. Then I get sent to a place that looks like this," a man from Syria told to the local Östersunds-Posten daily, pointing to the icy road. "It is dangerous for me to be here."

    The group refused to leave the bus and demanded that they were returned to Malmö, Sweden’s third city located in the south, or any other big city. The police were called on the scene, but they refused to evict the protesters.

    “We can’t force them off the bus. The case would have to go through the Swedish Enforcement Authority, which can issue an eviction order and only then can the police get involved,” officer Bengt Stadin said, Radio Sweden reported.

    Fredrik Bengtsson, a Swedish Migration Board spokesman, said that it was up to Swedish officials to choose where they would offer accommodation to asylum seekers.

    “We have seen cases where asylum seekers have certain ideas of what awaits them in Sweden and when that doesn’t match reality, then problems arise. They don’t feel what they see here meets their expectations. We’ve had a large amount of people come to Sweden this year and so we can’t place them where they want,” Bengtsson said.

    Asylum seekers are not prisoners and can live wherever they want after they are cleared to enter Sweden, but they would have to take care of their own accommodation themselves, he added.

    “We are in dialogue with these individuals, but we are very clear that this is the accommodation they’ve been offered and that if they don’t want it they have to arrange their own accommodation while their asylum applications are being processed,” Sophia Öhvall Lindberg of the Migration Board said.

    But the protesters say they feel cheated by the board as they were never told where they wanted to place them.

    "No one told us where we were going. Then we were told that we would be taken 40 minutes from Stockholm and in the end we had gone 15 hours," one of the man told Sveriges Radio Jämtland.

    The board said the Grytan housing center is now home for about 150 people. About a dozen of the protesters agreed to move in, while three others found their own housing.

    But about 40 people continued protesting and started taking turns to guard the bus, so that it didn’t simply leave them in the town.

    “We want a solution to this situation,” Öhvall Lindberg said.

    The standoff continued for two days. On Friday, the protesters finally agreed to vacate the bus after Swedish officials pledged to move them within three months.

    In 2014 Sweden took in its highest number of asylum seekers since 1992, when people fleeing the Balkans wars reached the Scandinavian country. A total of 81,300 people found refuge in the country last year, almost twice as many as 54,300 in 2013. The refugees come mostly from Syria, which accounted for 30,600 asylum seekers in 2014.

    http://rt.com/news/219387-sweden-asylum-seekers-protest/
    "We have experienced sometimes that asylum-seekers have a idea of what to expect in Sweden. When that image does not correspond to reality, it becomes a problem."


    http://www.thelocal.se/20150101/refugees-protest-rural-sweden-re-location

    Reporter R, Asylum seeker A

    R: "And what would be a better place?"

    A: "Malmö or Stockholm or any city but not with cold weather, and here exist bear and wolf and more animals. We can't stay here."

    R: "But I live here?"

    A: "Yeah, but I say to you, we are Arab people. We can't stay here in that weather."

    http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=78&artikel=6058506

    Do these people think that Stockholm or Malmo, both which have huge housing shortages, even for the natives, are warm or something? It seems that beggars can be choosers. It should be noted that asylum seekers in Sweden can live anywhere they want if they can arrange their own housing. Like living with relatives or friends. But these guys just want Sweden to give them free housing in the city of their choice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,895 ✭✭✭nokia69


    A: "Yeah, but I say to you, we are Arab people. We can't stay here in that weather."

    well go back to the middle east then, problem solved


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


    Funny you should mention Sweden. There's a group of asylum seekers currently threatening to go on hunger strike there.





    https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6058405



    http://rt.com/news/219387-sweden-asylum-seekers-protest/




    http://www.thelocal.se/20150101/refugees-protest-rural-sweden-re-location

    Reporter R, Asylum seeker A

    R: "And what would be a better place?"

    A: "Malmö or Stockholm or any city but not with cold weather, and here exist bear and wolf and more animals. We can't stay here."

    R: "But I live here?"

    A: "Yeah, but I say to you, we are Arab people. We can't stay here in that weather."

    http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=78&artikel=6058506

    Do these people think that Stockholm or Malmo, both which have huge housing shortages, even for the natives, are warm or something? It seems that beggars can be choosers. It should be noted that asylum seekers in Sweden can live anywhere they want if they can arrange their own housing. Like living with relatives or friends. But these guys just want Sweden to give them free housing in the city of their choice.

    Which is a bit funny,because the time of the Husby riots 2 years ago,one of the gripes was that their location within sthlm was a major contributing factor to the riots, with one New Swede declaring that " if we were housed in the city centre,instead of out here,this (the riots) wouldn't be happening".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭AndonHandon


    The term 'asylum seeker' should not be used to judge the person other than to say that they have fled their country as they were in danger. An asylum-seeker could be a baker who has had his bakery destroyed, a lawyer who lived in a city which has been flattened, an artist, a business person etc. until their refugee status is confirmed they should be taken into a country and given the bare essentials (food, shelter and medicine). Remember, asylum seekers cannot work in the EU.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    An asylum-seeker could be a baker who has had his bakery destroyed, a lawyer who lived in a city which has been flattened, an artist, a business person etc

    Or, as in the vast majority of cases; an economic migrant.
    Remember, asylum seekers cannot work in the EU.

    Depends on the country. For example, Sweden allows asylum seekers work if they play ball during the process(I.e provide them with the documentation they used to get there, clarify their identity, their application is well founded,etc). Very few do.

    http://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/Protection-and-asylum-in-Sweden/Adults-seeking-asylum/Work.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    nokia69 wrote: »
    they do

    and we have every right to say go somewhere else

    Everybody should have the right to life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    Everybody should have the right to life.

    Sure. But should everyone have a right to life in Europe?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,236 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Sure. But should everyone have a right to life in Europe?

    So just leave the boats at sea for them all to die?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    So just leave the boats at sea for them all to die?

    Stop them at source like we were able to do before the Colonel got offed, intercept them before they enter EU waters, or if they do get here, make sure that they are ok, give them medical treatment if needed, food, process them and send those who have no case home immediately. That's just a few suggestions of the top of my head.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Sure. But should everyone have a right to life in Europe?

    Do we?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    efb wrote: »
    Do we?

    I'm European, so yeah. Where the f*ck else would I live?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    I'm European, so yeah. Where the f*ck else would I live?

    By virtue of birth? Or how far back would you go???


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,157 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    EU residency and eventually citizenship is the jackpot.

    ●Free movement throughout the 28 member states.
    ●Easier visa processes for non EU western countries(America, Canada, Australia etc.)
    ●Free or heavily subsidised education.
    ●Child benefit.
    ●Much more job opportunities and the chance to earn a much higher wage.
    ●Social housing.
    ●Free medical care.
    ●A much higher standard of living for you and your family.
    ●If you get status, then you can bring over your family through EU family reunification directives.
    ●Welfare.

    If they get in, it's the best risk they will ever take and best eight large they will ever spend.

    You don't have access to many of those things until you become habitually resident. Unless you move from another EU country. Then you claim from that system

    Also if you work in Germany or the Netherlands you are obliged by law to pay for health insruance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭RobYourBuilder


    You don't have access to many of thse things until you become habitually resident. Unless you move from another EU country. Then you claim from that system

    No sh*t. Hence why I said EU residence and eventual citizenship.
    Also if you work in Germany or the Netherlands you are obliged by law to pay for health insruance.

    Asylum seekers who get leave to remain or refugee status don't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,236 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I'm European, so yeah. Where the f*ck else would I live?

    Plenty of Europeans live elsewhere.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Highflyer13


    Europe is still economically fragile and cannot realistically support boats of migrants arriving on its shores without it having an impact on European citizens lives. Growth is not strong enough at the minute. At the same time I wouldn't like to leave these migrants at the hands of ISIS or other groups they're fleeing from. Its a tough moral dilemma. If muslims are coming in they must integrate better.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    If you were to ask most people whether or not they were racist they would tell you "of course not". If you were to ask most people whether or not we should arbitrarily restrict people's rights to travel and work based on their race or nationality they would reply "of course we should".

    To me those two statements would seem to contradict each other. So maybe I've made a mistake somewhere. I'll leave the rest of you make up your own minds.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,060 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Maybe if you didn't toss in "race" the debate wouldn't get so infected.

    Instead of trying to label immigrations critics as racists maybe we could look at it from another point of view.
    Righties are generally of the view that there must be a elite that generates enough money to pay for the poorest in society by taxes. This translates to there must be rich countries to aid poor countries.
    Lefties are more of the opinion that everyone should share everything.
    Both opinions has their merits and pitfalls.

    How about this:
    Should Irish people be free to live and work in US/Canada? Is it racism if that is not allowed?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    How does claiming Asylum in the 7th country you have travelled through work ? You know you land in southern EU and turn up in the UK or IRL or some other EU state.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,157 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    No sh*t. Hence why I said EU residence and eventual citizenship.

    EU Residence as an EU Citizen and EU Residence as a non-EU Citizen are covered in EU Directives.

    Asylum seekers are covered by neither.
    Asylum seekers who get leave to remain or refugee status don't.

    Actually Asylum seekers in process of application in the Netherlands don't have to pay, its the ones that have a successful application are then covered under 2003/109/EC which means they have to pay like everyone else.


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


    If you were to ask most people whether or not they were racist they would tell you "of course not". If you were to ask most people whether or not we should arbitrarily restrict people's rights to travel and work based on their race or nationality they would reply "of course we should".

    To me those two statements would seem to contradict each other. So maybe I've made a mistake somewhere. I'll leave the rest of you make up your own minds.

    Life, unfortunately, is a bitch and necessitates societies.

    Societies must have exclusion, or they cease to be.

    Basing that exclusion on nationality doesn't mean theres racism involved.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    These aren't asylum seekers. The ships are "wooden horses of Troy". Those aboard are ISIS fighters. It's a trap!


  • Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Life, unfortunately, is a bitch and necessitates societies.

    Societies must have exclusion, or they cease to be.

    Basing that exclusion on nationality doesn't mean theres racism involved.
    I'm not so sure about societies, but a nation has characteristics that make that nation what it is, language being a prime example, culture in all its forms is also an identifying feature. Once an immigrant population exceeds a certain size, its members can start to change the host nation to emulate their culture (building a mosque for example, something that's alien to the host country), rather than to integrate into the hosts culture.

    European history is full of examples where countries have been invaded by such huge numbers to the point that the migrants are almost in control of the country, or at least in certain areas of some towns and making the indigenous people feel like foreigners in their own country.

    A lot of former USSR countries are suffering from that right now due to the large influx of Russians into most of those countries.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    biko wrote: »
    Maybe if you didn't toss in "race" the debate wouldn't get so infected.

    It's impossible to avoid race in a debate about limiting the rights of certain people based on their race/nationality.
    Instead of trying to label immigrations critics as racists maybe we could look at it from another point of view.
    Righties are generally of the view that there must be a elite that generates enough money to pay for the poorest in society by taxes. This translates to there must be rich countries to aid poor countries.

    This doesn't mean that there needs to be rich countries to aid poor countries. It means that governments can't help poor people without rich people to fund governments. It's hard to see how one can form an opinion on immigration policy from that simple idea either.

    Further to your point. People of the right are also of the view that anyone can make their way to the top if they work hard enough. They tend not to be in favour of laws that make it illegal for people to work their way up the ladder.
    Lefties are more of the opinion that everyone should share everything.
    Both opinions has their merits and pitfalls.

    Communists believe that everyone should share everything. The average lefty does not believe that. The average lefty believes that we need a government to support the worst off in society.
    How about this:
    Should Irish people be free to live and work in US/Canada? Is it racism if that is not allowed?

    Yes they should. It's either racism or xenophobia. Both of which are equally reprehensible.
    Life, unfortunately, is a bitch and necessitates societies.

    Societies must have exclusion, or they cease to be.

    Basing that exclusion on nationality doesn't mean theres racism involved.

    Societies must have inclusion or they fail to grow and prosper.

    Racism and the xenophobia that motivates immigration restrictions are two sides of the same coin. It's ridiculous to make it out as if discriminating based on nationality is somehow high-minded.


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


    .

    Societies must have inclusion or they fail to grow and prosper.

    Racism and the xenophobia that motivates immigration restrictions are two sides of the same coin. It's ridiculous to make it out as if discriminating based on nationality is somehow high-minded.

    Its not xenophobic if there's practical reasons. No society can survive if it cannot decide who joins it and in what numbers.
    Nationality is a pretty practical criteria to give/deduct points on.
    More so when there's high numbers involved.
    Let's you know how probable a person is to stay legally/illegally, probability that they actually will be capable of returning.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,304 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Yes they should. It's either racism or xenophobia. Both of which are equally reprehensible.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that unless people are for open borders, then they are either a racist or a xenophobe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Its not xenophobic if there's practical reasons. No society can survive if it cannot decide who joins it and in what numbers.
    Nationality is a pretty practical criteria to give/deduct points on.
    More so when there's high numbers involved.
    Let's you know how probable a person is to stay legally/illegally, probability that they actually will be capable of returning.

    There aren't practical reasons for immigration restrictions.

    Nationality would be a good criteria to give/deduct points on if people could be entirely defined by their nationality. But they aren't so it isn't.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that unless people are for open borders, then they are either a racist or a xenophobe.

    Yes that is pretty much what I am stating.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,283 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    There aren't practical reasons for immigration restrictions.

    Nationality would be a good criteria to give/deduct points on if people could be entirely defined by their nationality. But they aren't so it isn't.



    Yes that is pretty much what I am stating.

    Then I strongly disagree with you.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito




    Yes that is pretty much what I am stating.

    So if a million people land here tomorrow, we should just give them all their €188 a week (plus whatever towards housing them)?

    Where does this extra €188m every week come from?


Advertisement
Advertisement