Incident at Roscommon hotel (asylum seekers)

Kivaro · 13-02-2019 6:31pm

Grayson wrote: »

You said that anyone here who's against open borders for economic migrants is called a racist in this thread.

is there anyone here who's actually for open borders? is there anyone here who's said that we should have no checks for anyone at all? Is there anyone who's said that we need some kind of control and has been called a racist?

Everyone here believes in some controls. No-one here believes in having an open border. What people are arguing about is whether or not we should be accepting refugees and how many we should accept.

Yes Grayson, there are. You can find them on boards by searching.
Some will be extremely liberal, while others will be Sinn Fein supporters due to their representatives constantly advocating for an open door policy.

During Sinn Fein's ard fheis in 1998, motions were passed supporting open borders for all migrants, including economic migrants.
Article 26:
Sinn Fein will work for the achievement of the optimal position of no restriction on immigration to Ireland.

Article 27:
Sinn Fein deplores all attempts to limit the numbers of political and economic refugees into the country.

Both of these motions were passed unanimously by Sinn Fein and their open-door-migration-for-all motions have never been reversed or superseded by Sinn Fein at subsequent ard fheis's.

The reality of the situation in Ireland is that we have de facto open borders due to the porous nature of our border controls, coupled with a horrendous asylum process where failed applicants will almost always win out if they continue with the multiple appeal process. There are many ways to gain illegal entry into the country e.g. sham marriages, sham English schools, other higher education scams, but most just arrive using illegal papers. Amnesty (leave to stay) will eventually be given to these people by the government, irrespective of the fact that our political leaders have no idea of the numbers involved. But it will be sizeable for a small country.

Billy86 · 13-02-2019 7:01pm

Kivaro wrote: »

Yes Grayson, there are. You can find them on boards by searching.

You said they are people posting in this thread, just go ahead and name the posters who have called for open borders that you were referring to please.

Boggles · 13-02-2019 7:09pm

Kivaro wrote: »

During Sinn Fein's ard fheis in 1998, motions were passed supporting open borders for all migrants, including economic migrants.

Jaysus.

Went back a bit there didn't you?

Racist scare mongering aside, don't the vast majority of people who settle here come from the EU?

Kivaro · 13-02-2019 7:26pm

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

You're wasting your time trying to argue with racists.
..........

Boggles wrote: »

Racist scare mongering aside, don't the vast majority of people who settle here come from the EU?

Ah Jaysus lads, it is a clear indication of losing an argument when you resort to that type of rubbish.

This use to happen in the boards-of-old when anyone who had to audacity to ask questions about non-EU migration into Ireland were immediately charged and convicted of being racist .... just for asking the question.

So let's go back again to what the Finnish President said about having a frank conversation about the topic:

It’s unbearable that some who have sought asylum from us, and even received an asylum, have brought evil to us and created insecurity.......

We need an open and factual discussion and decisions that are weighted thoroughly.

Unless, of course, the Finnish President is racist too.

Boggles · 13-02-2019 7:32pm

Kivaro wrote: »

Ah Jaysus lads, it is a clear indication of losing an argument when you resort to that type of rubbish.

Hang on, you point to a 21 year motion which echoes EU immigration policy.

You just don't like the bit that lets in Africans.

Have you the link to 1998 text?

Billy86 · 13-02-2019 7:36pm

Kivaro wrote: »

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

You're wasting your time trying to argue with racists.
..........

Boggles wrote: »

Racist scare mongering aside, don't the vast majority of people who settle here come from the EU?

Ah Jaysus lads, it is a clear indication of losing an argument when you resort to that type of rubbish.

So what you are saying is, these open borders posters in this thread, you just made them up out of thin air and were lying. That's typically quite a big sign in itself that you're losing an argument, and given that you are going to such lengths to not name them, it's becoming the only logical conclusion.

I'll ask you the same as the other two - were Ireland to accept Jewish asylum seekers, only for Irish Muslims to burn down hotels to try and intimidate (also known as terrorism) what would your reaction be?

Wibbs · 13-02-2019 7:54pm

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on, you point to a 21 year motion which echoes EU immigration policy.

Doesn't make either of them any less daft. The same EU policy has let over five million in since 09. Nearly 80% of whom were men of fighting age. The image of families fleeing war is a bogus one. They exist but the majority are economic migrants. Fine for Germany who has previous for importing large numbers of young people to shore up their industries in the face of an ageing population. QV the Turks. Didn't go too great for them.

Billy86 wrote: »

I'll ask you the same as the other two - were Ireland to accept Jewish asylum seekers, only for Irish Muslims to burn down hotels to try and intimidate (also known as terrorism) what would your reaction be?

Well you picked the old Jewish angle in your usual attempts to showboat and close down discussion(quelle surprise). Secondly you're labelling them asylum seekers, suggesting they're fleeing from tyranny, which is an increasingly bogus label. But, hey, I'll happily bite and you can swap out any two groups. If the government were to drop into a small rural Muslim town with few employment options or infrastructure a large number of predominantly young male Jews without any consultation or choice in the matter for the local population, yep I could well understand locals getting extremely pissed off and some taking it to extremes. Because I live in a place called the Real World™. And in said real world "multiculturalism" almost never works and has never worked, save for in what the modern world would consider hard core "right wing" cultures of the past. Oh and pointing to European colonies founded on and requiring off large scale immigration, IE colonisation, as examples doesn't work. It certainly didn't work for the original inhabitants.

Boggles · 13-02-2019 8:01pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Doesn't make either of them any less daft. The same EU policy has let over five million in since 09. Nearly 80% of whom were men of fighting age.

Have you a link to where you saw that stat please?

Wibbs · 13-02-2019 8:02pm

tretorn wrote: »

Again I dont believe any of your statistics.

A wise choice. In another thread on the matter the same Odhinn claimed that Arab nations were bringing in their fair share from their much closer neighbours, unlike his linkless claims, I was able to demonstrate using various local on the ground mainstream news sources that the majority were doing nothing of the sort, indeed some were forcibly expelling same, but that was ignored. Of course, it doesn't fit the Right On narrative. No doubt Turkey and Jordan will be mentioned and yes, in particular fair play to Jordon, but they're more like transit camps on the way to the promised land of the EU. The vast majority of middle eastern refugees have come through both those nations. Then they rock up in Greece and onwards to countries with better social welfare options. Claim asylum in the first country is the rule? Then how are they getting to a little island off the coast of Europe like Ireland, or the UK? Or making their way all the way to Sweden? Eh...

Grayson · 13-02-2019 8:02pm

Kivaro wrote: »

Yes Grayson, there are. You can find them on boards by searching.
Some will be extremely liberal, while others will be Sinn Fein supporters due to their representatives constantly advocating for an open door policy.

During Sinn Fein's ard fheis in 1998, motions were passed supporting open borders for all migrants, including economic migrants.
Article 26:
Sinn Fein will work for the achievement of the optimal position of no restriction on immigration to Ireland.

Article 27:
Sinn Fein deplores all attempts to limit the numbers of political and economic refugees into the country.

Both of these motions were passed unanimously by Sinn Fein and their open-door-migration-for-all motions have never been reversed or superseded by Sinn Fein at subsequent ard fheis's.

The reality of the situation in Ireland is that we have de facto open borders due to the porous nature of our border controls, coupled with a horrendous asylum process where failed applicants will almost always win out if they continue with the multiple appeal process. There are many ways to gain illegal entry into the country e.g. sham marriages, sham English schools, other higher education scams, but most just arrive using illegal papers. Amnesty (leave to stay) will eventually be given to these people by the government, irrespective of the fact that our political leaders have no idea of the numbers involved. But it will be sizeable for a small country.

They said people in this thread. And they said wanted open borders. And they said people who were against open borders were called racists. Once again, in this thread.

They're making sh1t up. That never happened.

You've moving the goal posts by saying that it's a "de facto" open borders. The fact is that no-one here has said they wanted open borders.

Wibbs · 13-02-2019 8:09pm

Boggles wrote: »

Have you a link to where you saw that stat please?

Here you go, the highlighted orange bit in the number of asylum applicants table. Oh and my apologies, since 08. Oh and just above that a breakdown of gender. You'll note the blue bars(men) are around two thirds of the orange(women).

You want official EU stats? OK then, have a gander at this page.

The distribution of first-time asylum applicants by sex shows that more men than women were seeking asylum. Among the youngest age group (0–13 years), males accounted for 52 % of the total number of applicants in 2017. There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants who were 14–17 or 18–34 years old, where around three quarters of first-time applicants were male, with this share dropping back to just over three fifths for the age group 35–64. Across the EU-28, female applicants outnumbered male applicants in 2017 for asylum applicants aged 65 and over, although this group was relatively small, accounting for just 0.6 % of the total number of first-time applicants.[emphasis mine]

The only area where women outnumber men are the tiny percentage of pensioners. They're only the applications by the way, those that actually came forward officially.

SnakePlissken · 13-02-2019 8:10pm

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

You're wasting your time trying to argue with racists.

With these kinds of people, anyone who is in in the slightest way different is automatically deemed untrustworthy/dangerous. .

If that were even remotely true there would be no shortage of threads critical of the ideologies of Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism... and so on and so forth but there's not.

It's very easy to label those who are critical of Islam's homophobia and sickening mysoginy as racists because, well you do not have an argument, you and other supporters of this stoneaged religion are on the wrong side of the facts when it comes to increased crime and sexual abuse in western nations where Islam has gained a foothold.

Wibbs · 13-02-2019 8:11pm

Grayson wrote: »

You've moving the goal posts by saying that it's a "de facto" open borders. The fact is that no-one here has said they wanted open borders.

You're also moving goal posts like a groundskeeper on speed. Banging this drum to keep attention away from maybe more relevant debate points that you'll find a lot more difficult to deflect from?

SnakePlissken · 13-02-2019 8:12pm

Grayson wrote: »

Literally no-one has said that open borders are bad and has been called a racist for it.

I have, and...
I have.

jmayo · 13-02-2019 8:34pm

elperello wrote: »

It's a shame really.
It was a lovely hotel.
The food was good and a beautiful location on the Shannon.

Food was not really that good.

Berserker wrote: »

Not really, these rural communities are in need of regeneration. Keep hearing that rural Ireland is dying. ...

Still spouting this shyte I see.

Yep nothing like adding a bunch of totally incompatible people, probably with questionable skills and education, dependent on state handouts to kickstart a revival in a part of the country where even the indigenous population can't really survive.

jmayo · 13-02-2019 8:34pm

Grayson wrote: »

You said that anyone here who's against open borders for economic migrants is called a racist in this thread.

is there anyone here who's actually for open borders? is there anyone here who's said that we should have no checks for anyone at all? Is there anyone who's said that we need some kind of control and has been called a racist?

Everyone here believes in some controls. No-one here believes in having an open border. What people are arguing about is whether or not we should be accepting refugees and how many we should accept.

Literally no-one has said that open borders are bad and has been called a racist for it.

Actually had long discussion with someone, can't be ar**ed remembering who, about taking in migrants and so called refugees.
I questioned about how come there was a Cameroonian dying in refugee camp in Greece and how the feck he ended up there when he keep being told they are ALL Syrians. :rolleyes:

The poster of course dragged up something about how crap it is to live in Cameroon and thus by extension how this guy should be allowed into Europe.

This posters immigration policy basically boiled down to letting everyone in after of course "some checks".
Let them in for short while and see if they made a go of it.
If not then they could be deported.
A bit of a suck and see job.
Shure what could go wrong. :rolleyes:

First off, we all know the "checks" have let in some seriously dodgy scumb**s and secondly how are authorities meant to keep track of people and go chasing after them if we can't even deport half the ones that are in court every other day.

When someone of your opinion is pushed I usually find the following.

1. there will be checks of people coming in ...

Of course no one can really quantify how good the records are in some of these cr**holes from which the applicant claims to hail from and how reliable any check will be.
It is not quite like the US immigration authority checking about Mick from Ballydehob or someone here checking about Heine from Munich.

2. there are some awful places in the world (besides Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia) and we should help them.

Of course no one ever spells out how we in Europe can afford to take the many millions from Africa, Asia, who want to get out of the cr**holes they are in at the moment.
There is never a number mentioned, thus it is basically a free for all take them all in.

3. When confronted with the huge issues often caused by the offspring of past immigrants from these areas there are usual claims that it is the fault of Europe for not integrating them, multiculturalism is great and will work swimmingly in the future.

And especially here in Ireland because we have had some immigrants living here for a long time and nothing ever happened here.
We are different of course.

4. When confronted by the sizable issues around crime and in particular sexual violence perpetrated by some of the young male migrants/refugees/asylum seekers that have come to Europe you will rubbish those claims by alluding to indigenous population of rapists, the catholic church, etc.

And if anyone continously questions immigration policy then they are alt -right, racist, fascist, etc, etc.

Boggles · 13-02-2019 8:36pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Here you go, the highlighted orange bit in the number of asylum applicants table. Oh and my apologies, since 08. Oh and just above that a breakdown of gender. You'll note the blue bars(men) are around two thirds of the orange(women).

Nothing I have read from either of those 2 links suggest that nearly 80% of the 5 million were male or fighting age?

What is fighting age?

Robert Wolfe · 13-02-2019 8:47pm

Grayson wrote: »

Because most africans are young men? That sentence doesn't make any sense. And is it bad that they are men (If they are. I assume at least some are)?

Of course it's bad when these idiots bring their ****ty taharrush 'culture' with them.

Robert Wolfe · 13-02-2019 8:55pm

HiGlo wrote: »

And being Syrian/an asylum seeker doesn't automatically make you a criminal....

Ok, tell me how to seperate the good ones from the dregs?

Questioning sacred Cows · 13-02-2019 9:57pm

The locals have spoken. They don’t want asylum seekers dumped on their doorstep and why should they?

Wibbs · 13-02-2019 9:57pm

Boggles wrote: »

Nothing I have read from either of those 2 links suggest that nearly 80% of the 5 million were male or fighting age?

Nothing you have read eh? You seem to want to ignore what's there in black and white, but let me cut down this seeming confusing clutter of words:

There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants who were 14–17 or 18–34 years old, where around three quarters of first-time applicants were male,

Any clearer? Oh and I'm sorry, my mistake, around 75% were male and the only age category where women outnumbered men was in the elderly at 0.6%. 18-35 is the age range considered to be males of fighting age.

If a picture makes it easier?

The blue bits are male.

SnakePlissken · 13-02-2019 10:24pm

Wibbs wrote: »

The blue bits are male.

That graph is racist.

GinAndBitter · 13-02-2019 10:33pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Nothing you have read eh? You seem to want to ignore what's there in black and white, but let me cut down this seeming confusing clutter of words:

There was a greater degree of gender inequality for asylum applicants who were 14–17 or 18–34 years old, where around three quarters of first-time applicants were male,

Any clearer? Oh and I'm sorry, my mistake, around 75% were male and the only age category where women outnumbered men was in the elderly at 0.6%. 18-35 is the age range considered to be males of fighting age.

If a picture makes it easier?

The blue bits are male.

How was this even questioned anyway? Anyone with a pair of eyes could see what was In the boats coming across the med.

Prime example here in the opening scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPelTu3iupc

Wibbs · 13-02-2019 10:39pm

SnakePlissken wrote: »

That graph is racist.

Nah, SP it's sexist. Men are over represented and they're coloured blue, while the women are orange. So the old sexist notion that blue is a boys colour still holds, but they changed the pink of girls?* Haaaaruuumph.

*odd aside, pink used to be the colour for boys and blue for girls. And well into the twenty century too. Look at depictions of the Virgin Mary, she's usually dressed in white with pale blue accents, cos girls like. Pink wasn't even a colour until the 18th century. It was just another red. As was orange before it. And the Old Testament doesn't contain the word blue. But I digress... as per usual.

Ultimate Seduction · 13-02-2019 10:41pm

What has "fighting age" got to do with anything?

Wibbs · 13-02-2019 10:58pm

GinAndBitter wrote: »

How was this even questioned anyway?

It doesn't fit the narrative G. But let's play a game of Where's Wally Women?

151112_POL_refugee-crisis.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg

image.adapt.960.high.hungary_refugees_march_02a.jpg

That's the ME direction, but what about the African I hear ye say? To be fair you might, if you look closely enough spot a couple of ladies in these pics, so that's running on easy level.

mediterranean-refugees-migrant-offshore-aid-station-moas-1.jpg

Yet if you look at pics of actual war refugees across the history of the camera, you'll notice that the gender and age ratios are reversed. Women, young kids and the elderly. France 1939.

[IMG]http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Bundesarchiv_Bild_121-0622_Frankreich_Dainville_Flüchtlinge.jpg[/IMG]

Look at the current Venezuelan refugees, have an oul gander at them. Way more women, like a mad figure like 50%.

Naturally as the very young and the very old and women are the most vulnerable and not usually involved in the fighting, so men want them outa the war zone. Usually on both sides too. An opposing army will usually let "women and kids and the elderly" pass.

However when it's primarily a financial migration it's mostly men crossing borders to send money back etc. Look at the stats for migrant Mexican workers who jump back and forth across the border. More men than women.

Hmmmmm.

GinAndBitter · 13-02-2019 11:01pm

Some statistics from 2016

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeker-demography-young-and-male/

Wibbs · 13-02-2019 11:04pm

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

What has "fighting age" got to do with anything?

Basic stats. Along with being good at coming up with the better mousetrap, men aged between 18 and 30 are statistically about the most on the ground dangerous and troublesome demographic there is(but the old order them about, so there's that). Look at the stats for crime, violence, physical and sexual, terrorism, even driving like nutbags. Men from 18 -30 are right at the top. Of all the demographics one would be wise to be suspicious and mindful of are men of that age, usually unattached without families, often with lower education standards, with a very different culture, who will face racism and will harbour it themselves and are not exactly, or shouldn't be your top choice.

Ultimate Seduction · 13-02-2019 11:22pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Basic stats. Along with being good at coming up with the better mousetrap, men aged between 18 and 30 are statistically about the most on the ground dangerous and troublesome demographic there is(but the old order them about, so there's that). Look at the stats for crime, violence, physical and sexual, terrorism, even driving like nutbags. Men from 18 -30 are right at the top. Of all the demographics one would be wise to be suspicious and mindful of are men of that age, usually unattached without families, often with lower education standards, with a very different culture, who will face racism and will harbour it themselves and are not exactly, or shouldn't be your top choice.

Yeah I know all that, I just don't understand why "fighting age" is the term used. They're not coming from warzones so why not say 18-30 year old males.

Odhinn · 13-02-2019 11:25pm

Wibbs wrote: »

A wise choice. (...............)way all the way to Sweden? Eh...

You didn't. There are over a million in Jordan, a million in the lebanon, and certainly two million in turkey.n Churning out that 'where are the women' trope is inaccurate, ignores previous migrations patterns and is plain intellectual dishonesty.

Incident at Roscommon hotel (asylum seekers)

Comments