Deported With Only The Clothes On Their Back

by Oscar Fri Sep 22, 2006 20:03

(People have also been handed phones and told they have to speak to the person on the other end- somebody from their embassy. This is a direct breach of international law as it is illegal to inform an embassy of an asylum seeker’s identity as they are obviously fleeing that country for a reason.)

I gave up here.

How many times does RAR have to be reminded. Ireland does NOT deport asylum seekers.

If this individual is being deported, he/she is a failed asylum seeker or a bogus asylum seeker. It follows that they are NOT fleeing their home country for reasons applicable to the Geneva Convention and are therefore INELIGIBLE for those provisions within.

It is a sign of desperation that RAR continue to peddle myths rather than deal with the issue on its own merits.

by Question Fri Sep 22, 2006 21:09

"and only his college books in his bag"

Which books? University books? The RAR are consistently saying that asylum seekers aren't allowed go to university here. Are they going back on their words now?

by Chris Murray - . Fri Sep 22, 2006 21:10

For reporting the incidents. I heard much the same accounts by phone.
Unfortunately the bar-room cliches above me here tend to like negative
criticism of intervenionist female activism- it was brought up at a meeting
recently that most activist circles in the fair city are male-dominated with the
exception of RAR- the problem is a different approach to highlighting the
one-stop shop of Mc Dowell's streamlining of the deportation system
can lead to an overwhelming male critique of what can be accomplished.
Saying that it is really about time that Ireland recognise its insularity
and started relating its experience of right-wing government and erosion
of citizen rights as a global phenonmen and working collaboratively
with other groups. There have been numerous neo-liberal laws , most
deeply flawed put down on our statutes which are practically identical
to the neo-liberal regime of the Bush/Bliar administrations. Failure to
read our problems in a global/EU context is causing problems with reacting
to events. Well done again with the report.

by Revolt Fri Sep 22, 2006 22:51

Here`s a pic of the man who we witnessed holding woman with hius arm against her kneck.

the man

by Revolt Fri Sep 22, 2006 23:12

.

R.A.R told to move banner

it`blocking access ?!!

All try to see who`s screaming and some wish to assist ...

.

Gardai push out R.A.R who come to assist

by Revolt Fri Sep 22, 2006 23:40

.

crowd don`t like what they see

This man assaulted woman...

...who falls to floor...

..Then is out on the street..

by Ciaron - Dorothy Day Catholic Worker (personal capacity) Sat Sep 23, 2006 01:17

There are pockets of fascism in our society, immigration department herefor one, the prison system another, the daily grind refueling the cannon fodder at Shannon.

Many of the posts above are from people who embrace their place in the white boy first world bubble. If they are Irish they forget who we are, where we come from, how we had to emigrate, how many illegal Irish there in the U.S. today.

That buuble is not sustainable. The ecological destruction we sew in the Third World wil come home. The war we facilitate through Shannon Airport will come home. Those few who manage to flee our colonies, ecological destruction and wars will come here as our economic exploitation and arms trade have gone there.

Those who post with no human compassion to the events reported here value their place in the inner circle of empire (they forget we were once in the outer circle), they are happy to forget. Those who post here with no compassion value capital, economic arrangements that exploit others and benefit them, they are willing to play their sedated racist role at the centre of empire.

Those who post with no human compassion live in a delusion that their first white boy bubble is sutainable.

We can work our way out of that bubble with courage, nonviolence and compassion like the handful who gathered at this scene reported here. Or we will be dragged out kicking out kicking and screaming like NYC 911, commuters in London & Madrid, tourists in Bali and elswhere. We will be fearful, distressed and easily manipulated as we have been by Bush, Blair and Ahern for the past five years. These uniforms will up the ante, inetrn and torture those who courageously say yes to compassion and no to facism.

Many thanx to the few that gathered to say not in our name.

by mf Sat Sep 23, 2006 04:42

As someone who left this country as an economic emigrant in 1989 and recently returned to the wonders of the 'celtic tiger' it has depressed me to come across such widespread anti-immigrant cliches as those posted above.

I agree that accusations of 'racism' and 'facism' are bandied about far too easily in this and other debates but perhaps its worth delving a bit into why these accusations arise.

Ireland needs immigrants in order to sustain its continually expanding economy, this is clear from numerous economic reports and clear to anyone working, as i do, in a large factory that simply cannot get enough long-term workers to feed its growth. Like me, any working person cannot but be aware of the constantly growing number of eastern europeans working around and alongside them. So this begs a question, are these Eastern European immigrants 'scroungers'? Are they 'bogus', are they 'fraudsters'?I'm sure the above posters would agree that Of course they are not. But Why not ? Simply because Poland, to take the most obvious example, has been allowed entry into the elite club of European states, the EEC.

Following from this, what makes the immigrants deported by the Irish state deserving of the titles with which some of the above posters see fit to describe them? are they unwilling to work? of course not, they are desperate for work but wealthy European states such as Ireland do not allow them to work. So the question must be asked WHY NOT? And it is here that the answer 'because its the law ' is simply not sufficient on a moral/ethical basis (which is what law is meant to reflect). When noone is denying that Ireland needs more workers why can these non EU asylum seekers (incidentally mostly black/Brown)not be considered on an equal basis with EU economic immigrants (incidentally mostly white)?

The irish media and Irish historians frequently recall the great sacrifices made by our economic emigrants of yore, indeed without emigration its hard to imagine how this country could have survived for the decades since independance? but, I can't help but notice how absent from all the talk of Irelands emigrant past is any mention of the enormous amount of fraud which our diaspora engaged in as emigrants, what of the amnesties given to our ILLEGAL emigrants in the US when their numbers got so unmanagable? I remember my friends family celebrating when his brother came home from Florida for the first time in years in the mid 1980s, that former 'illegal' remains in the states and is married with children and has a succesful business now.

I often wonder why does noone mention aspects of our emigrant past such as the vans from the building sites pulling up outside the dole offices in kilburn and lads signing on in their work clothes with not a hint of shame? I remember a crew of Limerick lads with 18 dole claims going to one bedsit In Hackney in the early 90s and that's only one of many such cases. It may be that there's now a privileged generation of wealthy Paddys who like to subscribe to the deprivations Ireland suffered in the history books to justify thier contemporary selfishness but let's quit the bullshit, Until 1990 Ireland sent generations of economic emigrants around teh world and thought they were cute hoors when they beat the system, now we sit back and talk of law and reason to justify our greed, our selfishness and, yes, our bigotry.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker (personal capacity) Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:57

There are pockets of fascism in this society that claims to be liberally democratic, but where active citizenship is abandoned for passive consumerism as the main point of identitiy. This leaves open for the pockets of facism that do exist space to grow. Once the war comes home to Dublin as it has already to the first world inner circles of London, NYC, Madrid, OZ tourists in Bali, irish tourists in Egypt, Club Med bunkers of privilege placed in 3rd. World poverty etc ...there will be the politcal space for thes pockets of fascism to expand in a disengaged heavilly sedated and censored Irish society.

No major political party (the Republican torch carriers - who would one would assume oppose 1,000 foreign troops passing through Ireland a day to an illegal war - or the Irish Green Party -who have the roots in the German anti-war movement of the '60's) are running on the war, oppostion o Irish proactive involvement in it, Ahern's link to Bush etc. Even when last week's Sunday Tribune reports that the 80% of Irish people think President of the !st. World George Bush "has made the world a more dangerous place". There will not be a well placed voice like Mayor of London Ken Livingstone to make the links that the bombs are here, because we in London/Ireland daily facilitate the dropping of bombs and indiscriminate there.

Once Dublin is hit and it surely will be.,,,,and those most vulnerable will be people like myself who use public transport.......................the political vaccum will be filled with expansion of facism. Internment of refugees, RAR activists are real possibility.

The behavior of the Immigration officials in this report is fascist - the physical assault of a African mother. What would you like to call it? There isn't the active citizenship to pull their excesses into line and hold him in the account. There isn't a pack of civil liberties lawyers willing to take this up, there isn't trade union leadership with the integrity to confront their members racism and facism, there isn't an active advocating church to say "enough" to the beating of African mothers in the streets of Dublin by government uniforms.

It might not have the enthusiastic cheerleading of Italian and German facism of the '30's but it is facism nonetheless. Think more "Brave New World" rather "1984"...this kind of fascism can get by on your silence, sedation and cynicism...won't require you to be too energetic in your support for it. Just turn a blind eye and occasionally post and repeat your racist mantras.

Pockets of facism exist in a lot of lib dem societies. I've spent two years in prisons in three countries. Facism is where they can kill you and get away with it. They can do this in the vast majoity of prison systems in the western world. I have been in prison populations three times when prisoners have been killed with no official being charged.

I spent 11 months in prisons in the U.S. detained with others awaiting deportation. These are the experiences I speak from. There is no reason beyond racism and sloth that immigration officials could not swing by the detained person's house pick up clothes and his cash with him. If you were not racist this is the "quality" of deportation you would be demanding from your officials carrying out your policies. You would be outraged at the assaults carried out by state functionaries here and the neligence that dumps young and old people in Lagos vulnerable to the corruption of state functionaries there. You don't protest because you are racist. You only want borders for people fleeing not borders for western capital or military movements. You refuel a racist war machine at Shannon daily that does not respect borders.

Recently the Australian Immigration Minister admitted that two Afghanis she deported were murdered within weeks of their deportation. She like you doesn't lose any sleep. She is comforted by her racism as I am sure you are by yours.
Good night and good luck!

by Chris Murray - . Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:52

I left a comment yesterday evening in support of Caoimhe and RAR, I wanted to re-iterate that
and to add a little about the negative reaction to intervenionist activism-or activism that seeks to highlight the paucity of legislations put forward in a right-wing neo liberal administration with an overall majority.

Out immigration laws were streamlined, rights and advocacy organisations are under-funded:

The groups previously concerned with advising on issues of immigrant and refugee status
had their power removed. Minister Mc Dowell streamlined the service- so that the ultimate decision making on the issue of who stays and who goes is down to him. This is abuse of mandate and clearly a case of an overt neo-liberal excerising a lot of personal power.
The decision on Immigration rests solely with the minister for justice and his department.

Look at this dispassionately:
Reduction in services.
Underfunded resources.
Flawed legislation.

The possibility of a vested interest.
The possibility of human error.
No checks or balances.

The clear gap between what is stated in legislation and the practices of the INIS and GNIB
methodologies are open to abuse, with a GNIB service that possesses no ombudsman and if something goes wrong- years of investigation/tribunals. The results of which are put on the desk of the Minister for Justice (as In Abbeylara/Morris) accepted and then Blithely ignored.
RAR are drawing attention to the paucity at the heart of a service, whatever your opinion on
asylum/immigration,that is vitally needed.

By obfuscating the issue on the rights or wrongs of the legislation and the role of the Minister
for Justice in investigating himself and his bureaucracy, we are allowing for an inhumane
treatment of people in front of our eyes. There is a necessity to highlight what is happening
here and in our prisons because it shows the rot at the heart of the system .

At the very least a body with statutory powers to implement the laws that people feel are needed should be appointed, there was one but its powers were removed in the
streamlining process. The statutoy body should also have an investigative facility
and be independent of the Dept of Justice. Yeah- I can see that alright.

by Maureen Sat Sep 23, 2006 15:51

But Chris,
Your criticism of the system would seem to indicate that our asylum system is fundamentally flawed, operating in a biased and unfair manner. But you must equally be aware that behind all the posturing and media noise emanating either from The DOJ, GNIB, or from immigrant advocacy groups, the actual numbers simply do not back you up.

(a) It appears to be generally accepted that approx 70% of all asylum applicants lodged in this country are unsuccessful, following investigation and due process. The Irish asylum system has by all accounts drawn praise from the UNHCR and has been held to be a model for other European countries.

(b) But the number of deportations from this country so far, account for less than 5% of those considered to be unsuccessful asylum applicants. So what we have got is an approx 70% asylum failure rate, but less than 5% deportation rate. In reality the overwhelming majority of all asylum seekers arriving here, including failed applicants, continue to reside in this country anyway, apart from a very small but luckless few.

(c) How can you possibly explain, that between 1998 -2005, this peripheral rain sodden little Island of ours has become the single most favoured destination in the world for Nigerian asylum seekers. Here are the actual numbers I obtained from the UNHCR, and of course they can be easily verified.

Cumulative Asylum Applicants from Nigeria Years 1998-2005

Austria------- 7,879
Belgium-------1,074
France---------6,025
Germany----- 5,387
Spain--------- 7,514
Switz---------- 3,041
UK------------ 8,509

Ireland---------20,701

Canada---------5,355
USA------------1,134

Yet Ireland has no direct transport links with Nigeria. While others including UK, Canada, USA France and Germany have frequent and daily scheduled services operating with Nigeria.

(d) Not so long ago certain criminal elements who were being sought by police, from Ireland, or UK and elsewhere were said to head to Spain, so as to escape legal retribution in their own countries. Since joining the EU., Spain no longer allows its territory to be used as a heaven for escaping criminals. But would you consider it at all possible that given similar circumstances, that criminal elements from say Nigeria may now be similarly targeting this little Island in the same way, owing to the absence of effective border controls on Ireland’s part. Would you consider there might be any possible indication of such development, say being derived from the sheer magnitude, the type, of welfare fraud and drug related crimes, recently found here?

In your own opinion, does everybody including criminals have a legal right to claim Political Asylum, in specific countries of their own particular choosing and preference and must all asylum applicants be allowed to remain in their country of choice whether or not they are successful with their asylum claim? Could you please elaborate?

by C murray - . Sat Sep 23, 2006 16:07

That the minister's confidence in his legislation be translated into actions by:
1.appointing an advisory body on the system in Ireland which is independent
of his department and has statutory powers.
2. That an ombudsman be created to aid asylum seekers who must have complaints
against the system.
3. That in the case of FGM/Rape there should be a woman's officer/trauma counsellor
available to women in these cases.

as to the other questions-ask Michael. (I am thinking of having a badge made)

by gerri Sat Sep 23, 2006 16:38

reply to Ciaron:

Ciaron, you state that the immigration bureau is a manifestation of 'fascism'. A quick look at the dictionary definition of fascism defines it as 'a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism...' As far as I am aware, the PD FF coalition however undesirable much of their policies are, are democratically elected. It seems that the policies of RAR are clearly not the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland. This is evidenced by the miniscule support for RAR and by the small turnout at these demonstrations. Therefore it seems illogical to say that the Immigration Bureau is a manifestation of fascism.

You state a belief that posters above occupy a 'place in the white boy first world bubble'. Please don't presume to know my ethnicity or anything else about me based on my disagreement with the ideology of RAR (if you could call it an ideology).

You say that the bubble of ecological destruction and wars sewn in the Third World will come home. Many, many people resident in Ireland agree with you here Ciaron and this is evidenced by the huge turnout at the anti war march in 2003. But really, I don't see how the removal of all immigration controls remedies these situations? Perhaps you could elaborate.

You state that people posting on this thread are speaking 'with no human compassion'. How do you make this out Ciaron, it seems that most posters that disagree with you simply do not advocate an open door policy with regard to immigration. Is one automatically without compassion just because one does not agree with allowing each and every person the right to asylum, residency and all its attendant benefits?

You state 'We can work our way out of that bubble with courage, nonviolence and compassion like the handful who gathered at this scene reported here. Or we will be dragged out kicking out kicking and screaming like NYC 911, commuters in London & Madrid, tourists in Bali and elswhere.' Are you seriously suggesting that the granting of asylum in Ireland to all of those who wish it would in some way prevent further terrorist attacks?

by Caoimhe - RAR (pers cap) Sat Sep 23, 2006 16:47

Maureen at least u did bother to do some research, most don’t bother. Maybe you should try doing more research and then most of the confusion you have around these issues which you highlighted in your article would probably be sorted out for you.

"(a) It appears to be generally accepted that approx 70% of all asylum applicants lodged in this country are unsuccessful, following investigation and due process. The Irish asylum system has by all accounts drawn praise from the UNHCR and has been held to be a model for other European countries."

Firstly, when looking at recognition rates, you have to look at what is actually recognized as grounds for asylum. For example, Female Genital Mutilation is not recognized as grounds here. Torture victims/ victims of sexual abuse etc, often are unable to speak about their experiences as soon as they arrive here and hence don’t mention them in their interview, it is only brought up when they appeal. These people are then refused on the grounds that they didn’t tell their full story at the beginning, regardless of the evidence put forward by professional therapists in these cases, that these people were mentally unable to speak about them. The woman deported without her child on Wednesday was one of these cases.
UNHCR is a complete sham and stands to back up governments instead of standing up for the rights of refugees.

"b) But the number of deportations from this country so far, account for less than 5% of those considered to be unsuccessful asylum applicants. So what we have got is an approx 70% asylum failure rate, but less than 5% deportation rate. In reality the overwhelming majority of all asylum seekers arriving here, including failed applicants, continue to reside in this country anyway, apart from a very small but luckless few. "

These people are living in constant fear of deportation. The ill health effects (both physical and mental) of living under the system of direct provision is widely documented in numerous research reports. These people have no security, are barred from working and have to live on €19.10 p/week. Its hardly what you would call a decent standard of living.

"(c) How can you possibly explain, that between 1998 -2005, this peripheral rain sodden little Island of ours has become the single most favoured destination in the world for Nigerian asylum seekers. Here are the actual numbers I obtained from the UNHCR, and of course they can be easily verified. "

Why is it a problem that Nigerians like coming to Ireland?????? What’s the problem with that??
As for the comment that there are no direct flights from Ireland to Nigeria, the Dublin Convention principle was explained on the last thread about this deportation, so you can read it there.

"But would you consider it at all possible that given similar circumstances, that criminal elements from say Nigeria may now be similarly targeting this little Island in the same way, owing to the absence of effective border controls on Ireland’s part. Would you consider there might be any possible indication of such development, say being derived from the sheer magnitude, the type, of welfare fraud and drug related crimes, recently found here?"

This comment is ridiculously alarmist. You show your ignorance clearly here. But to answer your question, I have been doing work with asylum seekers for three years now as part of Residents Against Racism, and I can tell you without a hint of doubt, that I definitely have not ever, ever considered that this is the case. There is no evidence that this is the case and you would know this if you didn't just swallow the images of Nigerians that the media spoon feeds you and actually got involoved with working with asylum seekers. You obviously don't know very many of the people you seem happy to try to stereotype.

by matt Sat Sep 23, 2006 18:07

woolly hats
by matt Sat Sep 23 17:06:59 2006
That the Irish asylum system is held up as a model by the UNHCR is hardly something to be proud of. I have had experience with two UNHCR's, the first was extremely proud of the role that the UN forces played in Rwanda and put on a lavish celebration at great expense for world refugee day with ballroom dancing and champagne (no refugees invited) , the second backed the irish government during the afghani hunger strike. The UN meanwhile is repatriating refugees from afghanistan by the millions even as the US (who advise westerners not to travel anywhere near afghanistan)escalates it's war there.
Even if it is genuinely to be viewed as a model for other european countries to adopt this is only due to the fact that the majority of EU states have woeful asylum systems and now are planning an intervention force to turn back refugees before they can cross the mediterranean. Nowhere in the asylum process is there a recognition that the flow of asylum seekers is a symptom of the massive problem of inequal distribution of wealth, medical advances etc. in the world today. Instead people persist in seeing asylum seekers as frauds and conartists looking to steal the silver spoon from the first world's mouth. This continues even as western governments prop up despotic and brutal regimes for fear of an increase in the price of oil or a non capitalistic government taking control all the while proclaiming a love of democracy- the truth is that the west only likes democracy asl long as people vote the way they want to and don't dare challenge the status quo of west make money, everywhere else suffer. The UN has not sought genuinely to address this problem as it's Britain, the US etc. who maintain veto power and hence virtual control of the UN. The Un is interested in keeping people where they are.

That Nigerians make their way here in numbers is irrelevant. It does not indicate anything about the authenticity of their claims for asylum. Maybe their fondness for Ireland is due to the fact that we were only too willing in the past to send missionary after missionary there to spread our religious beliefs and save their souls and maybe they expected we actually practiced what we preached...Love thy neighbour anyone. unfortunately the nation of ireland while willing to give money to ease their guilt is unwilling to actually take any kind of positive action to aid those who find their ways to our shores.

Also many if not most asylum seekers are trafficked and few I'm sure are handed a travel brochure before doing so....

"As far as I am aware, the PD FF coalition however undesirable much of their policies are, are democratically elected. It seems that the policies of RAR are clearly not the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland. This is evidenced by the miniscule support for RAR and by the small turnout at these demonstrations."

gerri, the pd's have 4 percent of the vote...mcdowell is the secnd most powerful politician in ireland....how is this democratic?...Yes we vote for politicians or at least some irish people turn up to vote for politicians.... these politicians then go off and decide amongst themselves what laws are going to be brought in and what laws aren't with the irish people haveig little or no say in whether for example our noble politicians should actualy sit down and devise a PROPER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM .... their complete failure in this regard can be seen as the true measure of our political system.
What we have in ireland is not a true democracy it's a representative democracy where the good people of ireland are encouraged to tick a box once every four years and then sit down and watch them play politics ( which can be defined as....a. to engage in political intrigue, take advantage of a political situation or issue, resort to partisan politics, etc.; exploit a political system or political relationships. b. to deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way ).

Also the poor turnout at RAR demonstrations can be put down to a number of things...the sheer emotional investment required to actually fight a mostly losing battle every day, the fact that deportations take place during the day when most people are at work, the fact that apathy is widespread in Irish society and people are led to accept that somethings just don't change. And yes it can be argued that maybe Irish people believe in deportation....Millions of people believe in christianity, millions more in islam and hey buddhism and hindu are pretty popular too....does that mean that they are a) all right b) the one with more believers is right or c) that the numbers of believers in something does not necessarily prove it's veracity or justify it.
the majority of people in ireland may in theory support the asylum system but if it is such a wonderhful system then why are asylum seekers deliberately excluded from irish society by the irish governments policies? denial of a right to work let's the government portray them as scroungers, forcing them into hostels let's the government protray them as Other and limits the chance of Irish people from actually befriending the asylum seekers and seeing them as people just like any one else allowing them to exploit racist tendencies and use fear to win at the ballot box-maybe it's because when Irish communities have gotten to know asylum seekers, when their kids have befriended them, when they work alongside them they have a tendency to rise up and tell the government exactly where to get off.

"Is one automatically without compassion just because one does not agree with allowing each and every person the right to asylum, residency and all its attendant benefits? "

the majority of people posting here in support of the current immigration system would, I am guessing, still be supporting the GNIB if the irish government decided to just turn everybody without a visa or membership of the eu club away at the ports without regard to asylum claims...no doubt with the same arguments. Yes you are without compassion if you sentence people who have managed to escape persecution, torture, poverty, starvation to being kept on a poverty wage and under constant threat of deportation. Yes you are without compassion if you see the inequality present in the world today and then preciously guard a fictitious "god given " right to being better off than people no less deserving of the freedoms you currently enjoy....
and you are also foolish if you think that deporting these people is in anyway going to make your life better. i imagine the government are quite happy that you are here supporting their policies on immigration while you ignore the countless ways in which they have failed to live up to their promises. They are already beginning to use this issue as a nice woolly hat to pull over your eyes. Maybe you should start asking which would make irish people better off investing in healthcare or deporting people, owning our own gasfields or deporting people, having a public transport system we can be proud of or deporting people, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or deporting people, having a fair and free education system or deporting people....how many faults are you willing to ignore as long the government keeps pushing the immigration button?

by Chris Murray - . Sat Sep 23, 2006 22:01

"No system of Immigration management would be complete if we couldn't
manage the removal in an efficent and humane way of those who should not
be here"

Words of Michael on Publication of the new bill.

The foreign national is classified as someone outside of the EU.
ORAC, (Office of the Refugee Application Commissioner) is to
be subsumed into INIS (Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service)
The Protection Review Tribunal will replace the R.A.T.

No foreign National will be lawfully resident in the state unless "he or she
has a current valid Residence PermitIssued by or on Behalf of the Minister"

The permit will contain: A photograph and biometric information.
It will Be in credit card format.

The foreign national can be revocated if they do not uphold the law of the land.
This relates to driving offences.

Anyone not carrying a valid id will be obliged to leave or be removed summarily
and be detained if necessary to ensure removal.

Now how manty parents of Irish born citizens are going to consent with
a man demanding biometric info from their children?

http://www.justice.ie ( publication of Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill)

*RAT:- Refugee Appeals Tribunal

by Jamie.S. Sat Sep 23, 2006 23:31

The irish government is only interested in letting people come in to the country if they can make money out of them. This action is a travesty. Its the politicians we should be deporting.

by Ciaron Sun Sep 24, 2006 00:16

I have not assumed your ethnicitiy. There is plent of room in the whie boy bubble for folks of any origin or gender willing to work for the man.

On the day Gulf War 1 kicked off it was also Martin Luther king's birthday. MLK was denounced as a"communist" and "criminal" the battle for his memory has benein full swing. Pruning MLK of his revolutionary demands and opposition to imperial war in Vietnam. Refashioned merely to say that "anyone can make it in Amerikkka"...woman, black, disabled, just play the game.

To such an extent the person who was chosen to lead theMLK parade that day was none other than Colin Powell. He had to cancel, couldn't make it. Too busy bombing another Third World country. Now we have a black woman killing Iraqis....so yep don't fret wherever you come from plenty of room in the white boy bubble for you.

The Irish have been finally welcomed in, mainstreamed so fast forward, our heads are still spining.

by sympathiser Sun Sep 24, 2006 23:27

Firstly i want to state that i sympathise with the article, and the efforts by RAR to fight individual deportee cases. However, i think it is time that we analysed the means, organisation and methods chosen to fight the immigration system. We have to accept that we will not live in a world where borders do not exist in the near future. Therefore we ought to accept that they do exist and argue for a just approach to dealing with these border controls. RAR do massive work and ought to be recognised for this but is it the way forward? Is the organisation as it is currently structured capable of fighting an unjust immigartion system. All too often emotions get overly involved in these deportation cases. This is understandable but from my involvement it seems to be blocking any progressive change and inclusive organisation.

Even if one deportation is stopped how much of a dent will it make into the overall immigration system? The Kunle case last year was fantastic yet it made zero change to the overall system. However, something like an immigration system requires radical internal reform, and ignoring the state in this regard is impotent. RAR expect everyone to follow and support their tactics but all too often do not extend this support to others in the same field fighting the same system. Anyway, i think this thread could be a good base to begin a debate on HOW TO WIN the fight against our immigration system.

by gerri Mon Sep 25, 2006 21:51

well sympathiser,

You state that you think 'a just approach to border controls', while you accept the existence of border controls, should be fought for. What exactly is it that you think is unjust about Irish border controls? Is there a particular area of injustice that you would care to highlight, that you believe should be fought against?

Seeing as you seem to accept the existence of borders, do you accept the right of the Irish state to enforce them? If you do accept that Ireland cannot accept every application it receives for asylum as a genuine applicant in real need of international protection, you must accept that the Irish state has the right to deport on occasion.

What is the unjust approach that needs to be fought against exactly...

Ireland adheres to the UNHCR guidelines on refugee recognition as do other EU countries. Our rate of recognition compares favourably with the rest of Europe. Contrary to what RAR claim, FGM can be and has been recognised as grounds for asylum although obviously not each and every time it is claimed. Each asylum claim needs to be taken on a case by case basis, however it seems that what RAR want is for each and every applicant to be accepted as genuine, regardless of their claims or what independent data shows. This is why they are fighting a losing battle and why the overwhelming majority of people see through their facade for what it is and decide never to support their ideals. So any Immigration reform fought in cahoots with RAR is destined to failure...

by VeryMad Tue Sep 26, 2006 01:45

It is true that it is impossible for Ireland to just open their doors and allow any Tom, Dick and Harry into the country but I swear to you there is mass hatred directed towards foreigners trying to start a new life here in Ireland.
I could sit here all day and go through every comment and get angry and insult every mongrel I have encountered but let me reassure you that the Irish people will be forced to except other nationalities, that they so hate, in the decades to come.
We now have many immigrants here in Ireland with Irish born children, (and just think about the amount of Irish born kiddies O/S that have been deported with their parents?), and from my own experience it doesn't matter where your parents come from, where you are born is where you will always feel at home.
These kids are Irish and in the years to come they are going to integrate into society, they will soon be marrying and starting families with your own Irish daughters and son's...then my friends you will have 2nd generation and 3rd generation Irish born children.
I have seen this happen in Australia, my parent's were Irish Immigrants in the 1970's and we were classed along with the Italians, Lebanese, Turks, Greeks and Asians as "wogs".
We were coming into "their" country to take "their" jobs and homes, and to burden the tax payers and the health system.
But over the past 30 or so years times have changed in Australia and the Australian people were forced to accept the New Australian's as they saw them walk down the aisle's with their Aussie kids, or saw them being successful with different business ventures and over time they began to integrate and accept them.
The same will happen in Ireland, so the best advice I can give the Irish government or the angry people of Ireland is..just relax, stop the hatred because it's too late the world is changing and you will just have to move with the times.

by hehe Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:23

An aussie trying to lecture Irish people on immigration

Now thats a laugh....

Try telling that story to Little Johnny

maybe Ireland should adopt the Aussie version of immigration rules

then you would really have something to complain about

by jasus Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:38

That ciaron guy is good with throwing insults at people but low on facts

are you a supporter of open borders or not ciaron? and enough of the shite that everybody who disagrees is incorrect or a fascist or a ...or a ......after a while it just becomes laughable...

if you are in favour--how do you suppose to counter the effects that open border policy would bring to a country? how would you approach the denigration in all government services as a result of massive increased usage, and that is just for starters.

what would you do to cap the increases in inflation as a result of the massive demand for housing and everything else as a result of open border policy? or do you think that there would be no ill effects, that all would be fine??

where would you hoouse all the inflow? the creation of ghettos creates isolation and helplessness and this in turn manifests into riots, look at other countries to see this--in fact just look at Australia , your country of origin, those leb riots , that is 2nd and 3rd generation who are born in australia with the misguided notion they are actually lebonese when most have never even been there, is that what you advocate m8?

or perhaps the creation of an irish redfern..........

by Vin Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:50

20,701 Nigerians have chosen to come here yet we are expected to believe that out of this 20,701 not one is a criminal (in response to Caoimhe's 'alarmist' comment). If this is the case then I am moving to Nigeria, it is obviously paradise and nirvana of crime free love.

What is amusing to me about the RAR is the quickness to brand anyone who disagrees a racist whilst simutanously being obsessed with race.

Are all deportations wrong?
If so do we drop all border controls?
Is it our right to live where we want with no regard to the immigration laws of that country?

And lastly what about prison?

For example a member of the public commits a crime, he/she goes before the courts and is found guilty, thye appeal, it is rejected. She/he is sentenced to four years in prison. Do we as a nation automatically assume he/she is innocent , do we assume that the facts of the case were ignored, that a corrupt panel sentenced him/her anyway? Do we then prevent justice from taking it's course? Given the arguments against deportation for failed asylum seekers (given the rigours of the application procedure) even with failed appeals, then this must be the case for asylum seekers and not people going through the Irish judicery..
Unless you are privy to each and every asylum case, and I assume you are not, then you must work on a basis that every single deportation is wrong and that every single asylum seeker is right (whilst ignoring those Irish Nationals going through a similar process in the courts) . If so then it is a sweeping generilsation based on the race/Nationality of a person...aka racism.

So their you have it, based on your own arguments, the RAR are in fact racist.

by jasus not again Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:32

I have seen this happen in Australia, my parent's were Irish Immigrants in the 1970's and we were classed along with the Italians, Lebanese, Turks, Greeks and Asians as "wogs".
We were coming into "their" country to take "their" jobs and homes, and to burden the tax payers and the health system.
But over the past 30 or so years times have changed in Australia and the Australian people were forced to accept the New Australian's as they saw them walk down the aisle's with their Aussie kids, or saw them being successful with different business ventures and over time they began to integrate and accept them.

Indeed apart from the riots australia is fine!! and the segregation...and the 3rd generation italian/australians, lebanese australians, etc that do not speak english, they have been thought the mother tongue and think they are from their grandparents country of origin

Australia may have accepted their parents, but their offspring have yet to accept australia--the perfect example, well done!!!!

if you want to quote successfull race relations methinks you should give australia a wide wide berth, tis far from perfect and as you say, the Australian people were forced to accept the New Australian's........shame nobody forces the new australians to accept that they are actually australians!!!!

by VeryMad Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:26

Well I'm speaking purely from a personal indivdual view point and purely from the experience of the people I personally know.
I'm really sorry that I can't speak for the whole society of Australia and I haven't met everybody single person in Australia.

Am I not allowed to have a personal viewpoint? and being a dual national and thought of as a foreigner in this country it seems I can't even have a voice, just like someone had suggested to the other Australian a few quotes before.

I think the whole attitude here is just "shout up and go home"....Hmmmm where have I heard that before...LOL

by VeryMad Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:28

Well I'm speaking purely from a personal indivdual view point and purely from the experience of the people I personally know.
I'm really sorry that I can't speak for the whole society of Australia and I haven't met everybody single person in Australia.

Am I not allowed to have a personal viewpoint? and being a dual national and thought of as a foreigner in this country (and then called a Paddie in OZ!) it seems I can't even have a voice, just like someone had suggested to the other Australian a few quotes before.

I think the whole attitude here is just "shut up and go home"....Hmmmm where have I heard that before?????...LOL

by Fake name Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:35

Vin your argument is completely flawed. For a starter RAR never claim that all Nigerians in Ireland are saints, never has and I doubt never will. So on your opening argument you start of on a fabrication. Secondly the Immigration process is not transparent and is therfore not comparable to the court system. The court system also has a jury system of 12 people, the immigration system is completely lacking in transparency with the decisions not being published, the interviews are often flawed due to the lack of/poor translation and it has plenty of other problems which have been listed countless times before. The ability of asylum seekers to take their cases to a judicial review is solely based on their ability to pay several thousands of euro's to a legal team, they do not get legal aid for this. So your comparative analysis has no basis in reality. Your deduction that RAR is therfore a racist organisation is as flawed as all your arguments.

I am glad you are so interested in fighting injustice in our courts system, of which there is plenty, however RAR is an anti racist group and there are other groups who are campaigning on an issue you clearly feel so moved by. When can we expect you to get involved in one of these groups?

by jasus not again Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:48

Well I'm speaking purely from a personal indivdual view point and purely from the experience of the people I personally know.
I'm really sorry that I can't speak for the whole society of Australia and I haven't met everybody single person in Australia.

well your experience is a small narrow viewpoint, Australia has serious racial relations problems and your style of glossing over does not wash here, Australias racial problems are a direct consequence of earlier immigration, and you want Ireland to follow that path? Yet you offer no solutions to Australias massive issues and endorse it as a safe solution for Ireland?

do you agree with 2nd and 3rd generations of Australians not speaking english? do you think that if they were born and raised in Australia how in gods name do they regard themselves as greek, or lebanese or russian even though they have never even been to the country? Are you telling me you have never seen a wog speak Italian aor greek or hold up the Italian/greek whatever flag during the world cup? And they are australians born there but they have no loyalty to australia, you support that view? is that Multiculturism in action? they riot and attack white australians on cronulla beach...is that what multiculturism is? you need to snap out of it

chuckle

by VeryMad Tue Sep 26, 2006 14:00

....That Lebanese riot that occurred in Sydney, erupted because of the unrest with Muslims which is happening,,,ehhhh globally????

by jasus Tue Sep 26, 2006 14:25

err no it happened because a lifeguard was assualted a week before and some girls were assualted because they were in bikinis and women regularily get called names etc by lebs etc because they are not in the muslim gear(on the beach)

These people are australian, were born and bred there, unforunately there parents have instilled in them that they are italian or lebonese or whatever so that also knocks your theory that in a couple of generations they would be pretty much fair dinkum aussies.

look fellow--i do not think anybody disagrees with immigration, that aint an issue, however what is an issue is some organisation promoting a free border policy with absolutely no control, even australia had border controls and look at the shit going on there WITH border controls

by VeryMad Tue Sep 26, 2006 14:32

I'm not suggesting anything or trying to compare anything, I'm just giving my own personal story or viewpoint. (obviously people haven't heard of FREE SPEECH here yet...chuckle)

Because I have travelled and lived with different nationalites, I understand that they are just human and are on the same level as myself. I don't regard myself as better or worse than any other human being no matter their creed or color.

I'm not going to waste my energy arguing with you over this policy or that policy or who said that or this and so and so.
Also I have used the racist word very, very rarely during my life but let me tell you..majority of Irish people have very little tolerance for foreign people trying to start a new life in their country..

I'm going back to the original argument that I support RAR's claims that those people that were deported on Wednesday 20th Sept were done so under very unfair conditions.
That is my main focus, they were not given the opportunities that me being a white person would of be given in any western land...that I know for sure and that is the statement I am going to stand by!

I was there my friend and because of what happened on Wednesday 20th September on Burgh Quay, they have just created another voice supporting RAR!

And I am very mad but it makes me happy to see all those "intolerate" people being angered by people supporting RAR, don't worry there will be many more supporters to follow in years to come!

by Fake name Tue Sep 26, 2006 14:41

The riots in australia were because of attacks between australian youth gangs and lebaneses youth gangs over a prolonged period of time, it was not becuase of the reasons you outlined. However the problems of 2nd and 3rd generation youths not speaking the native tongue should not be tolerated either, Australia has a massive problem with integration, not immigration. Ireland does not have any integration plans at present and this needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, we can look to other countries mistakes and learn from them, or we can repeat the same mistakes and try and stoke a "blame the immigrants" card that McDowell and his FF cohorts are constantly playing.

by wtf Tue Sep 26, 2006 15:19

Im not sure how legal it is to post pictures of people and then accuse them of assualt with no proof but its got to be bordering on illeagal.

Is the refugee gonna press charges? Obviously not, so stop LYING

by Fake name Tue Sep 26, 2006 15:25

An asylum seeker would be to afraid to press charges against the gardai as they believe it would negatively effect their case. There was several witnesses to the assault which is why the gards aren't threatening people with libel action. It was true so CTFO.

by Liar,liar Tue Sep 26, 2006 15:31

It was true so CTFO

LIES AN U KNOW IT PAL! Your view was **obstructed** remember, ohh err no it wasnt, yes it was, nooo it wasnt

TIP NUMBER 2

dont change your story every 5 mins

By half 5 the bruising was already starting to come up on her neck. She was accompanied home that evening.

Why no photo? you photographed everything else in the vicinity

sniff sniff

by Fake name Tue Sep 26, 2006 15:41

SLB nobody is changing their position every 5 mins HSOYTS. There was several witnesses not just the photographer and again if it was false the gardai could take legal action. Why aren't they? becuase there was several witnesses to the assault. GSAM.

by VeryMad Tue Sep 26, 2006 15:43

And what's your badge number???LOL
sniff sniff

by VeryMad Tue Sep 26, 2006 16:12

The first thing that comes to my mind is that this poor woman probably didn't want her picture's published because from her point of view, what's the point or she is probably fearful of coming public, in case it would look bad on her application, she would look like a trouble maker, don't you think?
If I was in her position I would just keep my head down and hope for the best, just like she is doing!
She is fighting the immigration system here in Ireland and now you want her to start fighting an assult case, Wow...I wonder if that poor woman would have any nerves left?
I know I would have a nervous break-down if that was me...but Ohh I forget, no body cares!

You know you people (and that is by no means directed at the whole of Ireland, btw) are just sitting in the comfort of your homes on your nice sofa's reading the papers and watching the news, you don't feel the pain and suffering these people feel.
How would you like to be seperated from your child? or relative or husband? Why can't you see that these people have feelings and need to be treated with compassion and decency?
And don't bother throwing this policy and that policy at me, cause at this point in time I'll just wipe my ass with them!

by liar liar Tue Sep 26, 2006 16:24

The first thing that comes to my mind is that this poor woman probably didn't want her picture's published because from her point of view, what's the point or she is probably fearful of coming public, in case it would look bad on her application, she would look like a trouble maker, don't you think?

You have allready published 2 pictures of her ffs, so stop making excuses

no proof once again eom

by VeryMad Tue Sep 26, 2006 16:39

I am not part of RAR or ff? and had nothing to do with those pics love...I have only become aware of the organisation called RAR since Wednesday, so if you have an obvious problem with the pics, then please direct it at the right person:)

by Fake name Tue Sep 26, 2006 16:43

Once again there was several witnesses and the gardai are not suing anybody as they would be entitled to if it was false, GSAM. You seem to completely ignore this glaring reality YSLB. The woman did not want her face shown, she made this clear and there is not one photo showing her face OCYWLHD. EOM and EOD

by gerri Wed Sep 27, 2006 02:50

Fake Name, you say that

"RAR never claim that all Nigerians in Ireland are saints, never has and I doubt never will".

Well I have asked on numerous threads for somebody from RAR to say whether they agree with any border control. Also asked was whether they believe all applicants for asylum are deserving of status, they never answered these questions, so it seems fairly reasonable to assume from their silence that RAR believe in an open door policy and that applicants from certain countries are deserving of refugee status, regardless of what the independent information states and regardless of how untruthful they may have been. That in itself is a form of differentiation on the grounds of nationality and ethnicity which is a form of racism.

Your comments regarding the court system, firstly the Refugee Appeals Tribunal now publishes decisions so it is untrue to say that is lacks transparency. You speak as if the Irish court system is in some way more favourable than the asylum system. Well if the same standards were applied to asylum applicants as are in a court of law, Ireland would have almost no refugees. Every applicant for asylum is allowed an interpreter in a language of their choice, at great cost to the taxpayer. If the interpreter is not to the applicant's liking for some reason, they have the opportunity to say this and a new interpreter can be got.

VeryMad, you say you are not a RAR member. Well I think you should join, this would increase their membership by....25%? Like RAR you make assumptions, mainly about Irish people that they are xenophobic and racist. Of course there are racists in Ireland, but I can tell you from personal experience that Ireland is on the whole a welcoming society. Other EU countries are alot more hostile to a person obviously of a different ethnicity. The vast majority of non Irish are in Ireland to work and most Irish people have no problem with this as well as having no problem with genuine refugees. You say that the lady RAR allege was the victim of an assault probably did not bring a case against the assaulter as she was afraid it would negatively impact on her claim - well it seems that as she is in line for deportation, this really wouldn't matter. I would wager that this assault did not happen, except in the minds of RAR members who seem to believe that the government is wrong about absolutely everything and its employees would assault a woman, in broad daylight with numerous witnesses about. If this person was assaulted, why not show an image of these alleged bruises, without showing her face?

by Fake name Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:52

RAR believe in open borders, open borders means no asylum seekers as people could come here freely. It does not mean that there would be no passports or that national security would be cast aside.

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal have only published a handfull of cases, despite two court rulings so it is not true to say that it is transparent. The interpreters are atrocious and how can people complain if they can't understand the translation that is given on their behalf. It is often not until the applicants get a grasp of english themselves that they see how bad the translation is. As for this quote from you "if the same standards were applied to asylum applicants as are in a court of law, Ireland would have almost no refugees" this is a ridiculous assumption for you to make as it would be a flagrant breach of both Irish and International law.

"VeryMad, you say you are not a RAR member. Well I think you should join, this would increase their membership by....25%?"
RAR have quite a substantial membership, but very funny joke, perhaps you should do stand up comedy?

"Like RAR you make assumptions, mainly about Irish people that they are xenophobic and racist."
Completely false Gerri with no evidence to back it up, RAR do not and have never held that assumption and neither did Verymad say that

As for the woman who was assaulted, she is in the process and is not in line for deportation as you say. The woman was most definitely assaulted and most asylum seekers would do exactly as she has done which is to not register an assault for fear of it negatively affecting her case.

by Revolt Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:03

The woman in photo did give permission . Her head in her hands was a natural reaction given the circumstances. I did not feel it nessesary to show her face .I stayed with he woman untill 7.15 that evening being concerned for her welfare and did not leave untill transport had been arranged for her.

by VeryMad Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:56

You know what I am a very fair person and I accept all your point of views and arguements!

But listen here, I am assuming that the people advising me here are all Irish,, am I right?
I look Irish, but I have a foreign accent, I am married to a Nigerian, I spend a hell of a lot of time with Nigerians and people from different nationalities as well as Irish people who I am related to and love dearly..

So Who do you think is going to have more life experience with these issues,,,you or me???

These laws that you are all hiding behind are man made, (and if a man can make 'em, a man can break 'em) and I feel that these laws are effecting "some" very good people.

You keep going on about boarder control and this and that, but were you there on Wednesday 20th? did you know anybody that was deported?

RAR's original thread was about them being mistreated on the day, and yes they were shipped onto that plane, without even time to say goodbye to anybody, with just THEIR CLOTHES ON THEIR BACK.

Would you like that for somebody you love?

Why can't you just stick to the issue here without causing smoke screens?????

by liar liar Wed Sep 27, 2006 13:17

But listen here, I am assuming that the people advising me here are all Irish,, am I right?
I look Irish, but I have a foreign accent, I am married to a Nigerian, I spend a hell of a lot of time with Nigerians and people from different nationalities as well as Irish people who I am related to and love dearly..

So Who do you think is going to have more life experience with these issues,,,you or me???

You, but your hardly impartial then. The people deported came here illeagely, they did not observe the laws of Ireland and as a result they paid the consequence of breaking the law,
end of story

they knew the risk and they got caught , who knows they may have more luck the next time

You people try to make it sound like the people are doing nothing wrong but the fact is they are

by hardnut Wed Sep 27, 2006 13:25

fs

all you have reported is that the state is doing what it is meant 2

deport lawbreaking asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected

Life aint a box of cookies
you seem to think that these people can waltz in to this country, lie to try to gain citizenship. they cant and they never will be able to.

in fact as well as deporting them i think they should be fined also for wasting state resourches

by zzzzzz Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:34

If the stories of these immigrants are true they will obtain refugee status.

The problem is that some of the people who make contributions to this discussion assume, without having any evidence, that everything claimed by asylum-applicants is true.

If they are genuine, let them make their applications through our UN-praised asylum-process where they are given, not just one, but several bites of the cherry to make their case for asylum.

Firstly before ORAC and it's UN-trained rapporteurs.
Secondly, and If unsuccessful before ORAC, on appeal to the RAT where the success-rate of Nigerian asylum-applicants is statistically greater than in any comparable process elsewhere in the EU.
Thirdly, via the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court where any hint of unfairness by either ORAC or the RAT provides grounds for state-funded judicial review.
Fourthly: Compassionate leave to stay. A good example of this was where the government gave residency to a large group of illegal immigrants (mainly Nigerian women) because they were mothers of Irish-born children. (Their alleged partners, who are belatedly trying to jump on this band-wagon are trying to make the government regret it granted the exemption in the first place)

However, I take it that the people who are the subject of this discussion were 'found-out' by the asylum process, and it was decided at every stage, and after hearing both sides (with the applicants represented by counsel paid for by the Irish taxpayer) that the deportees had no credibility.

Ireland welcomes legal immigrants of all races creeds and colours, just as it rejects asylum-cheats of every race creed and colour.

by Joanne Mon Oct 02, 2006 18:02

I definitely think there are many problems with the asylum application process in Ireland. You can cite all the various UN and EU reports, but to assess the standard of the system who have to listen to the experiences of the people who are actually going through it. And from talking to asylum seekers here, the system is failing them. Asylums seekers I have spoken to have said that they are given poor translators in their interviews who cannot properly translate the reasons why they have had to flee their countries. Many civil servants do not understand the situations that exist within these countries. For example, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan told me that in his interview when he said that his family had been murdered by the Taliban he was quizzed and it appeared suspicious that he had no photos of his family. He told me that they obviously didn't have a clue about Afghanistan because under the Taliban taking photographs is banned. Other questions asked are naming and spelling towns and rivers in your home country in order to prove that this is the country you have come from. If you do not know certain place names, or can't spell them then you are seen as lying. I know myself that my geography of Ireland isnt great and I'd have problems spelling places like Dun laogaire (is that right??). I think there needs to be a human rights approach given to asylum seekers applications and maybe it should be the Irish Human RIghts Commission that assesses applications.

Another problem with the system is the treatment of asylum seekers in Ireland. Not being allowed to work, being given 19.10 euros a week and having to wait sometimes years to find out whether or not you can stay here must be mental torture. That's not taking into account the harsh experiences many asylum seekers have come from in their home countries and the racist abuse and attacks they are faced with by certain sectors of the media and from some of the public in Ireland.

At the end of the day, these are people like you and me, most of who have come from very difficult situations within their home countries and obviously would not have chosen to have left but were forced to for various reasons. I feel ashamed that I am Irish when I hear stories of mothers being deported without their children and 18 year olds being deported back to Nigeria on their own without their family. I mean would an Irish person be treated like this???

by deporter Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:09

and having to wait sometimes years to find out whether or not you can stay here must be mental torture. That's not taking into account the harsh experiences many asylum seekers have come from in their home countries and the racist abuse and attacks they are faced with by certain sectors of the media and from some of the public in Ireland.

The only reason they ***Wait*** for years is because they appeal every rejection thus dragging their own cases on and on for years. they can appeal and do appeal regardless thus clogging our legal system with rubbish

by zzzzzz Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:09

'They would say that, wouldn't they?' sums up your entire first paragraph. that is why we have an asylum process - to hear BOTH sides of the story, and to assess whether what is claimed is 1. credible, and 2, is a ground for asylum under ECHR (under the very liberal interpretation given to the ECHR by the Irish asylum-system and courts)
The civil-servants who deal with these cases at first instance are UN-trained, and have access to a huge body of information on the relevant countries of origin. The applicants and their state-provided lawyers have access to the resources of the Refugee Documentation Centre. Applicants have not one but four bites of the cherry - all they need to do is establish credibility in ONE of these stages to gain refugee status or residency.

Asylum-applicants normally get an interview with ORAC within weeks, and if unsuccessful, an appeal within two months of the decision by ORAC. Long delays are inevitably caused by applicants who either fail to appear for interview or appeal or bring judicial-review proceedings. Causing delay, and then pleading delay they caused themselves is not a ground for contesting deportation when your juduicial-review is found by the court to be without merit. The same goes for unsuccessful applicants who disssapear or make themselves unavailable to the authorities for several years and then claim that it would be unfair to deport them because they have been in Ireland for several years.

Just because you leave your country of origin is not reason or evidence that you had to flee for a 'Convention' reason. Millions leave their homelands every year for economic and social reasons. However, asylum-applicants are claiming persecution, either because they have been genuinely persecuted or as a means of evading or cheating the normal immigration rulees which apply to them. People who are found to be asylum-cheats can expect to be sent home. Asylum cheating is not a victimless activity. It incentivizes criminal gangs (the traffickers), it undermines the entire asylum system upon which genuine applicants depend, and it associates immigration with illegality - all of which rebounds primarily on the vast majority of legal-immigrants.

by gerri Tue Oct 03, 2006 20:09

skeptic- you seem to speak a hell of a lot of sense. And sense is in short supply here unfortunately.

Joanne, if you do work with asylum seekers you should know that it is policy that they are always asked are they satisfied with their interview and interpreter. In fact, they may even say that they are not happy and that they want another interpreter. I am not saying that there are never ever problems with translation/interpretation, but it is unfair and untrue to suggest that this is frequently an issue. The example you mention about Taliban/photographs, this information is in the public domain and on the internet. Any case examiner would be well aware of this - if they were not, the applicant's legal representative would pick up on this easily and it would be used at appeal and could be used for judicial review. This is something very basic. You portray the case examiners working for the department of justice as a crowd of ignorant, insensitive civil servants - there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. They are trained by the UNHCR and have to undergo frequent refresher training. They are required to take an approach that is underpinned by respect for human rights in the course of discharging their duties and many of them have a huge knowledge of the countries producing the most asylum seekers.

by Gerri Tue Oct 03, 2006 20:37

...is as racists. Fake Name, you say above that RAR "do not and have never held that assumption". Well here is what Emma of RAR has to say about Europeans - not just Irish.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76869

"just shows the racist attitude that Europeans have to asylum seekers"

You state that "The interpreters are atrocious", people cant "complain if they can't understand the translation that is given on their behalf. It is often not until the applicants get a grasp of english themselves that they see how bad the translation is".

Are you now saying that an asylum seeker has an interview, doesn't understand their interpreter, who through 'atrocious' interpretation damages their case, a few months later they learn some English and somehow remember the interview which was held in a language they didn't understand at the time?

No I didn't think so...

by Fake Name Wed Oct 04, 2006 07:52

Gerri, I have seen hundreds of case files, have you? There have been plenty of cases were the translators were so bad that the mistranslated words to give a totally different meaning to what the applicant was saying. Of course the applicant would remember what they had said, the translators often are not knowledgeable in the particlular dialect and are truely woeful.

As for Emma's comments, she isn't a spokesperson for RAR and if you think that she was calling all europeans racist than you are incredibly thick.

by zzzzzz Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:50

Well, Fake Name, the reality is that each asylum-seeker has several different and independant opportunities to establish their credibility. There would need to be unfairness at every stage for your hypothesis to have any force. Given that the asylum applicant is provided with connsel paid for by the Irish taxpayer at the appeal stage to protect him or her from the type of unfairness you allege, and given that if such unfairness is alleged, the applicant has the opportunity to have his or her negative decision reviewed by the High Court (again with legal representation provided by the taxpayer), your allegations are groundless.

Incidentally, unless you are present at the hearing you have no first hand knowlege of what you allege. Unsuccessful applicants in all processes, not just asylum-seekers, are inclined to allege that they did not get a fair hearing. Under our UN-praised system, it is the independent High Court that decides issues of fairness - not wild allegations made by people with an axe to grind.

by Fake name Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:11

zzzzz your post is nonsense and without any credibility. First of all RLS are pretty bad, they make constant mistakes, ask most private lawyers. The Judicial reviews you refer to are not paid for by the tax payer and cost between €3-5000. The reality is most asylum seekers wont seek private lawyers as they can't afford them, and if they can they generally can't afford judicial reviews. Your allegations and indeed knowledge are completely groundless. Incidentally having seen hundreds of cases and decisions I fully know what I am talking about unlike yourself. Also the UNHCR only praises certain aspects of our system and not the system in it's entirety, more groundless accusations. This was shown in a letter that the recently appointed UNHCR rep to Ireland published in the Irish Times in the wake of the Afghan Hunger strike in St. Pats

by zzzzzz Wed Oct 04, 2006 14:21

Dear Fake,

In their appeals before the RAT, applicants, unless they themselves opt for private representation, are usually represented by the RLS and counsel provided by the legal aid board and funded by the Irish taxpayer.

Where a negative decision is given by the RAT, the RLS requests counsel to comment on the hearing before the RAT and the written decision as to whether any judicial-review issues arise. Where counsel so advises, the RLS will bring JR proceedings - again, representation is funded by the taxpayer. When counsel advises that there are no JR issues the RLS will usually accept that advice, and if the applicant so wishes, make application for residency on discretionary (compassionate) grounds. If the applicant, unsuccessful at the initial and appeal stage, and RLS advising that there are no credible JR issues, still wishes to proceed with JR, then he or she is free to pursue JR or whatever by engaging private representation. By the way, counsel, as condition to their acceptance onto the RLS panel, must attend regular refreshers on refugee-law.

The RLS 'farms out' a relatively small number of appeal cases to private solicitors. These solicitors tend to specialize in refugee law and are required by the RLS to show that they are up-to-date in their expertise. They also have access to the resources of the Refugee Documentation Centre. Normally, counsel briefed by these private solicitors are the same counsel as act for the RLS. Needless to say, cases 'farmed out' by the RLS are also paid for by the long-suffering taxpayer - not the applicants themselves.

A tiny number of applicants themselves opt to process their initial applications and appeals through private solicitors - because they have access to private funds, and decide to go 'private' (just like people do with schools and health-care).

By the way. Please specify for me, showing why- (and for all the other browsers on this discussion-thread) any instance where Irish asylum law and practice fails to comply with the requirements of the UN and international law.

Your contributions to this web-site are entirely based on assumptions and allegations gleaned from second-hand sources

by Fake name Wed Oct 04, 2006 14:57

It is well known that RLS do not take JR cases and it is complete nonsense for you to claim that they do. They do not as they don't have the funds to do it. It shows your complete lack of knowledge for you to claim that they do.

by Serena Wed Oct 04, 2006 16:11

It seems extraordinary that "fake name" refers to no less than "hundreds" of case files that he/she has apparently reviewed, not to mention a suggestion at deep insight to all aspects of asylum and the minds of RAR.

Accordingly, it is hardly unreasonable to request that "fake name" explicitly reveal his/her competency for doing so. For example, if "fake name" is a civil servant or a human rights lawyer, then one assumes that there is some substance having seen all factors come into play and having dealt with both successful and unsuccessful claims.

If on the other hand “fake name" is a member of RAR with no such competence, One might equally assume that "fake name" has little or no experience of successful asylum claims nor appropriate legal/UNHCR training and education in refugee case determination and associated relevant criteria, such as individual identification and credibility issues, therefore leading to a lopsided and naive view of the asylum process.

This might indeed manifest itself in some of the bizarre statements being made here, such as the suggestion that the totality of the UNHCR praised, asylum claim processing system could not cater for a simple translation error, vis a vis appeals nor the legal system vis a vis judicial review nor the Government vis a vis final appeal and, as a result (armed with no proof or even ONE case study), we are routinely sending people back to their deaths and/or torture as a result in contravention of international law accorded to Convention refugees.

Something, that for some unknown reason, only ever appears to be of concern pre-deportation and never significantly before or after the fact.

I am not suggesting that “fake name" is a member of RAR or not, however, it is unusual for RAR members, who it must be said, rarely shun publicity, and who also post here, not to use their own names or at least adhere to one that would avoid the obvious accusation of sock puppetry.

If on the other hand “fake name" is in fact, a civil servant, UNHCR employee, lawyer, judge etc, that would require anonymity, perhaps he/she would at least have the good manners to make that clear.

A little less of the cringe inducing personal abuse would be a nice bonus.

by observer Wed Oct 04, 2006 23:30

fake name, your assertions that the RLS do not take JR cases are incorrect. JR cases have been taken and continue to be taken by the RLS, what is more they are funded by the Irish taxpayer and can cost up to 50,000.

You say that among the 'hundreds' of asylum files you have perused, evidence of 'woeful' and 'atrocious' interpretation is to be found. If inadequate interpretation was found to have been the case at the first stage of the asylum process, their substantive interview, this would be seen by the member of tribunal at the second stage of appeals. The applicant would be found to have been disadvantaged and this would work in their favour.

I very much doubt somebody such as yourself could ever have access to any asylum applicants files - these documents are highly confidential and unauthorised personnel would have absolutely no business viewing them.

You are clearly a person who has only vague second and third hand information in relation to the workings of the asylum process, all emanating from one source. This information is incorrect in many cases and in others is only partly true. When you are challenged in relation to this you resort to personal abuse of anyone with the temerity to to question you.

It is unclear as to what your precise relationship is to RAR but a word of advice for future attempts at peddling lies and misinformation in regard to the Irish asylum process - lie about less verifiable aspects.

by septic skeptic Thu Oct 05, 2006 01:25

The RLS thenselves disagree with Fake Name. From their website http://www.legalaidboard.ie/lab/lab.nsf/02e1d1523b8b780...ument
it appears that they do indeed "assist in relation to deportation orders and Judicial Review procedures"

How Can the Refugee Legal Service Help You?
A person who makes an application for legal services will be furnished with assistance as soon as possible. Assistance will be provided in the following way:
- We assist generally in applications for asylum by providing advice to you before you submit your questionnaire to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner or before you attend your interview in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner.
- We can provide interpreters for appointments with your solicitor.
- We can make written submissions to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner in support of your application for asylum.
- We can provide representation before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
- Where refugee status is refused, we can assist generally in the submission of applications pursuant to the Immigration Act 1999 and matters arising therefrom.
- We can assist in relation to deportation orders and Judicial Review procedures.

by Fake name Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:24

RLS do not take JR proceedings as they do not have the funding. Why don't you go ask any solicitor. It is plain to see. Or ring RLS and ask them how many JR's they have taken recently. And JR proceedings in asylum cases cost between €3-5,000 not €50,000. As for the translations, this is a problem that has been commented on before not just by me but by NGO's such as the Irish Refugee Council, the Immigrant council and plenty more. The bad translations do not work in the applicants favour at the appeals process, it is a complete fabrication to say that. As for the decisions, I have seen hundreds of case decisions in my work with asylum seekers. A lot of the poor translations are because the "professional" translators that they get in are woefull, not only that many asylum cases are rejected also on the basis of the information given by the government of the country that person is fleeing. The system is completely flawed and needs a complete overhaul the UNHCR has criticised our system for not allowing asylum seekers to work. How many of you who have used the UNHCR in your argument raised that? Not one.

As for the documents being highly confidential there has been two recent court cases that have called for the decisions to be published and the government has refused apart from a select few. I have seen them as I work with asylum seekers on an individual basis. Usually preparing them for legal action, so I fully know the "capabilities" of some of the RLS solicitors (some are good), and I fully know the translation services. As for the personal abuse claims, spare the nonsense its pretty pathetic to talk nonsense and then claim that your being personally abused, go cry me a river.

by zzzzzz Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:07

Dear Fake, you are wrong, yet again!

The RLS DOES take judicial review proceedings - but only when counsel advises that there are JR issues arising out of the ORAC interview or RAT appeal.

Ask any barrister who does work for the RLS. The first thing they are asked when any RLS represented appellant receives a negative finding from the RLS is "can you advise whether there are any JR issues arising out of the hearing or (written) decision"

Look at the refugee JR list in the high court and you will see that the RLS is listed as 'solicitor on record' in a significant number of cases. The high court list is a public and published document.

Fact.

by zzzzzz Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:26

ps.

You are still dodging my challenge to show one single instance where Irish law and practice fails to comply with the UNHCR or international-law generally.

by Serena Thu Oct 05, 2006 16:08

It is noteworthy that despite my previous post, "fake name" you carry on regardless, refusing to specify what exactly is your level of competence/education/training etc. that you bring to your mysterious work with “hundreds” of asylum seekers.

That you work in the area, and remind others repeatedly o this fact, is the only reason I am asking you the question.

It is interesting to note that you question the competence of translators, RLS solicitors, the government etc. yet pointedly refuses to establish your own credentials and qualifications.

Should we merely assume "fake name,” that your services/credentials/qualifications transcend the entire multi million, UNHCR administered - refugee process, the independent judiciary and the final independent government appeal, processes, to give highly unique and invaluable insights?

Myself, I would prefer to assume no such thing. The asylum system and its proper administration is de facto, life or death. Thankfully, to my knowledge, despite the deportation of hundreds of individuals, including those that are the subject of this thread, you still have no examples where we got it heinously wrong and indeed returned any individual that genuinely required extra-national protection (i.e., a convention refugee), to that fate.

That, “fake name,” is the only thing that matters to genuine refugees. How we get to that level of proficiency, how those involved do their jobs, what asylum seekers do whilst they await decisions are all too often distractions, thrown up for - and around those, and their supporters, who may be many things, but most fortunately (for them - not us), anything but convention refugees.

The humanitarian and human rights inspired system of international refuge founded by the UNHCR was not designed for them, was never intended for them, and should be made as unattractive and unwelcome to them as possible. Perhaps that explains neatly why there are practical measures such as restrictions on working, welfare curtailments, dedicated accommodation, and ultimately deportations of those who aside from their claims for asylum have no right or legal basis to be here.

If I am reading you correctly, you too make no attempt to dispute the fact that none of the individuals deported, were de facto convention refugees, despite, one assumes, having somehow reviewed their case files (and, dare I say, hundreds more).

So “fake name”, for the purpose of debate and greater understanding of the system that administers this success story and suggestions on how to build on this achievement, it would be greatly helped if you spelled out your involvement/competence in the asylum processing system and relevant qualifications in that area and any case studies that underpin any of your claims that the system is failing refugees, the very people around whom the entire process rotates, if that is even remotely close to what you are claiming in the first place.

by Emma RAR per cap Thu Oct 05, 2006 16:30

Anytime I have posted on indymedia it has never been as spokesperson for RAR but in a personal capacity and Gerri if you check the link you'll see I said Europe not European's. Have you nothing beeter to do with your time than throll through archives.

by Serena... Sat Oct 07, 2006 19:48

And Serena, why should fake name reveal him/herself to you...?and
WHO ARE YOU??????

And since we are on the subject of backing up our views here...why don't you give me some success stories?

I'll give you one...
I know some wonderful Nigerian..(yes they happen to be Nigerian for the purpose of this debate) couples, who have Irish born children, who were born before 1st Jan 2005..
These lovely people are even afraid of running a red light in their car, incase McDowell and his cronies deport them for having a traffic offence.

Maybe you are in a little bubble of your own and have only seen the good but love, I have seen the bad and ugly and from my point of view...
SOMETHING STINKS!!!!and it isn't FAKE NAME...hehe

by matt Sat Oct 07, 2006 21:54

First off there seems to be a quite common presumption here that Ireland does not deport genuine asylum seekers and that if your case fails you are either bogus or don't have a strong enough case....
I wonder how people have so much faith in an asylum process that refuses and blocks any attempts to increase their transparency. So far only a few decisions have been made public and it is entirely up to themselves to decide what to publish and what not to publish....If they refuse to back up and stand by their decisions by making them public then how can you be so vociferous in your defence of the system? And sure you can argue that we should not claim the system is widely unjust just because they refuse to publich their decisions but thinking about it just a little do you truly believe they are reluctant to publish their decisions BECAUSE the system is just and fair (maybe they are just modest about their exceptional talent at spotting the "fakes") or do you think it's more likely they are unwilling to publish decisions because that would open them up to much criticism?

Secondly what is a bogus asylum seeker exactly- someone who comes here from a poor impoverished society trying to find a better life for his family, someone from a country whose government is so unpleasant and inept that WE won't even enter into migration agreements with them. They are not evil scumbags coming here to scrounge a free buck or two from the state, they want a chance to make a better life for themselves as Irish people have done for years, a life they cannot ever hope to have if they stay at home.

The criminals who are apparently flocking here in huge numbers don't really exist in such epic proportions( the term "alarmist" you may like to note as used by Caoimhe above points to widespread exaggeration of the number of criminals coming here to, it is not used to deny that some few asylum seekers may be criminals or that asylum seekers are angelic, perfect beings) and fall outside this debate anyhow because that is an issue of EXTRADITION not deportation and those are two completely separate issues. On extradition the only issues I would have is whether when they return home to face justice they are likely to be given the death sentence or suffer abuse of their human rights ( remember they cover all humans not just the lawful ones). If the ' justice' they are likely to face is something that we would not tolerate in Ireland then I do not believe they should be extradited.

The number of nigerians coming here is always made into a big issue- people always forget that we were always more than happy to send our missionaries abroad to nigeria to spread our catholic beliefs. Maybe nigerians have hence come to have a positive and encouraging view of ireland as the land of a hundred thousand welcomes, as somewhere that honestly believes in helping those less fortunate than themselves. Why is it a problem having so many nigerians coming here anyway? I am fairly reluctant to use the term racist too liberally but even still the general attitude that pervades the press and many who post here definitely seem to fall into this category.

That the creation of ghettos would be a terrible development is very very true which is why the governments abject failure to implement any kind of integration strategy, save for the minimal PR commitment , is very dangerous and is something that needs to be seriously looked at. the fact is that ghettos are likely to happen as long as the government, and the irish people by failing to pressurise them, fails in this regard by inadequate english lessons, the isolation of asylum seekers from irish society (for fear irish people would begin to see asylum sekers as nothing to fear) and the refusal to allow asylum seekers regardless of how long they have been here to work. the government are afraid of integration because what then would they use to whip their supporters into a frenzy, to scare people into supporting them- fear is a powerful motivator and the government have a nice litle tool to use as long as asylum seekers are kept isolated from irish society.

Last little point- one might ask how exactly fines for waste of resources would be imposed ...maybe we should get soon-to-be-deported-asylum-seekers to work off these fines before we send them home, building railroads for example....don't be ridiculous.

The realities involved here are that globalisation as pushed by the WTO, World Bank and IMF is designed not to develop poor countries but to use them to make more money for the already rich ones. Protectionism has been used by every developed country to build up their fledgling economies and even now the irish government will for example subsidise irish farmers etc. this basic economic tool is denied to developing countries by rich ones with a resulting LACK of development in poorer countries. The people who live in these countries are denied the chance to migrate to rich countries because this would reduce exploitation, reduce profits for first world countries and force the first world to take an active role in actual DEVELOPMENT of third world countries. If asylum seekers are denied the chance to come here then when will we start to take an active role in reducing global inequality.

The main fear evident here is that poor people from third world countries will flock here looking for work and overrun our economies....this fear is perhaps not without some foundation. After all we have an awful lot, food for example and clean water and an economy worthy of the name that the "wretched foreign masses" would like to have.
So I propose a solution. Ireland should get up off it's ass and begin the undoubtedly long and painful task of challenging the existing capitalist american and G8 government (and private enterprise) led system. we should start taking an active role in supporting genuine efforts at developing third world countries as opposed to raping their resources and cheap labour. We should start demanding the cessation of western support for friendly dictators and challenge americas right to ignore the UN and stick it's oar in wherever it wants to. People don't flee their homelands for no reason and writing off these reasons as merely economic and social ones is ignorant. Economics can kill thousands and persecution is a social reality for many. It is time for Ireland to actually look at what it's silent acquiesence is getting it and start speaking out and standing up.

by Maureen Mon Oct 09, 2006 01:57

Indeed Matt you do appear to hold some shall we say, unorthodox views and perspectives of this world, and of the nature of mankind in general. It is a benevolent outlook, and one which deserves respect.

One might even be inclined to agree that in a perfect world, your views might have some merit. But alas, for the most part we all must learn to accept the world as it truly is, rather than holding on to some fairy-story-concept which we as individuals may prefer to retain. Have you for example ever considered anything about the relevance of history to your concept of a world without borders or perhaps some lessons it may or should have taught regarding the true nature of man?

You pose the question, why national boundaries are necessary. In essence there are usually 2- main reasons.

1, the protection of our national social security provisions for the indigenous population.

2, Avoidance of human conflict.

No 1 speaks for itself, the obvious impossibility of stretching our social security resources of this tiny island with a potential of 3- Billion of world most impoverished peoples, must be self evident.

No 2. Relates more to the nature of man and one might suppose to our animal instincts when it comes to human conflict.

Example 1 Take for instance the establishment of the State of Israel.
Following WWII, Israel drew its population and immigrants literally from the 4-corners of the Globe.
Now, according to many of our modern day Irish theorists and soothsayers, such a movement in itself, should have ushered into that historic region a period of great cultural enrichment and human benefits to all the peoples in the immediate neighbourhood. They should all have welcomed and embraced such great diversity.
But was that the actual result?.

On the contrary it triggered and continues to trigger a series of brutal conflicts with all its attendant human misery, where once there had been relative peace and calm.

Example 2 The settlements in the new world, North America, Australia, New Zealand were accomplished only in the aftermath of the wholesale slaughter and wilful destruction of its indigenous peoples. They being replaced as majority inhabitants, by mainly European immigrants, who were required to accept loyalty to a UK monarch and a European culture. Now frankly I have never heard any of the descendants of those once indigenous peoples ever give praise or thanks for the benefits that such multiculturalism brought upon them. I do know that some still strive to protect what remains of their once proud indigenous peoples, their values, their customs, their cultures. Now sadly mainly remembered in theme park portrayals.

Example 3. Following the Indian sub-continent wresting its independence from the colonial power the UK, the Hindus and the Muslims subsequently fought a bitter civil war against each other, and ultimately came to a conclusion that they could not live together. The country was subsequently divided, involving huge displacement of populations, into two separate countries of Pakistan and India. Each with its own ethnic identity. Even to this very day both these neighbours and former compatriots have A-Bombs pointing at each other.

Nor even was a small Island like Cyprus post independence struggle, immune to its conflicting cultures, as it too was forced to break-up into 2 parts following a vicious civil war; the Greek and Turkish communities realizing they simply could not live together under a single administration.

Example 4. The recent example of genocide in Rwanda, between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Where was the cultural enrichment between the two? Where were the benefits of their combined diversity?

There are of course numerous other such examples from all around all around the Globe such as the disintegration and subsequent slaughter in Yugoslavia along ethnic lines, or indeed the stampede, following the collapse of the once tyrannical USSR, to re-establish Independent states along their original ethnic and cultural demarcation lines.

So one might well be inclined to question therefore, where is the cultural enrichment, the social fulfilment, or the greater contentment, which is nowadays promised by our modern Multicultural theorists to the people of this Island as a result of mass immigration here. Will this theory too, like so many other movements in history ultimately fade away and degenerate also into human conflict?

Yes, I agree with you there may also be a certain genuine fear and not only in this country. Frankly I would not be at all be surprised to find that for the most part such fear may be based upon recent events and developments occurring in other countries affected by mass immigration. Whether that be Madrid, London, Bradford, Paris, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Moscow, Bali or even in New York. It does not altogether exude optimistic indications.

Yet according to at least one eminent academic in Ireland, at our present rates of economic growth the Irish indigenous peoples are quite likely to become a minority group in this country by the year 2050. In itself perhaps and to you as somebody who disagrees with any form of national boundaries, this may not be of any real concern. However when outnumbered and consequently outvoted, will imported values also turn out to be to everyone’s liking? Should the majority population in this country at some future date for example vote for the introduction of Sharia Law, would such be freely acceptable to you? As a democrat we would of course have to accept it. But as a Christian liberal at heart would it also find favour with you?

So Matt I do hope my effort may have gone some way to explain why people such as myself, not to mention our forefathers, have taken the perspective we are entitled to hold. Neither do I foresee any likelihood that the majority on this island or anywhere else in this world, will decide to abandon control if its borders any time soon.

by gerri Mon Oct 09, 2006 02:28

matt - as you will see at this link http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76869 - Emma does not post in a personal capacity. Btw, this is where Emma points out her belief in "the racist attitude Europe (Europeans?) have to asylum seekers".

You characterize an asylum seeker found not to be genuine, having gone through the system as "someone who comes here from a poor impoverished society trying to find a better life for his family". Thats quite an insight you have there Matt.

As has been pointed out previously, there are people in need of international protection due to serious persecution on account of their ethnicity, religion, political opinion etc - this is what a real refugee is. If we were to "let them stay" as you suggest (I am assuming here that you mean grant all or almost all asylum seekers refugee status), we would be severely undermining the integrity of our asylum system. This system needs to be maintained so that genuine refugees with a real fear of persecution can be recognized and afforded protection.

Of course the EU and first world need to give more to developing countries while taking less, as well as instigate major reform of trade etc, but undermining the integrity of our asylum system is not the place to start. Doing so would simply line the pockets of people traffickers and prioritize those with large sums of money to pay them. This system needs to be maintained and strengthened for the sake of people who have no other safety net and who cannot remain in their country of origin for fear of death or torture.

If you wish to create a system to bring all the poor folk to Ireland, desperate to improve their family's lives, that is one thing and perhaps a separate issue. But it is nonsense to suggest that the asylum system is the correct channel for them.

by all stay Mon Oct 09, 2006 23:48

yes but these people come from countries which have zero respect for human right, where fgm is practiced on lot of the woman . deporting to these countries is wrong on all counts. you never hear of deportations to US or Aus do you or other first world countries. All immigration controls are racist, its obvious to anyone with any cop on or compassion.

by shoegirl Sat Oct 28, 2006 16:14

" you never hear of deportations to US or Aus do you or other first world countries"
Actually, you do. I know of at least 1 Australian was under a deportation order, for working while waiting for a work permit to come through. In fact several dozen deportation orders are raised against 1st world citizens every year, in most cases for breaches of work permit controls. The problem isn't just confined to asylum seekers either. A lot of unmarried couples and gay couples are hit by the restrictions of their visas and difficulty in getting a work permit. Ireland remains in the dark ages in terms of the difficulty of getting work permits insofar as laws requiring applications to be made need to be made OUTSIDE the state but WITH a job offer. This is highly complex to say the least.

Ironically some of the countries whose citizens we are happy to spit in the faces of with processes like this are countries like the US and Australia which have generous work permit and visa policies for Irish citizens. Perhaps when the day comes when they treat our emigrant like we treat theirs we might wake up to this reality. It is ludicrous that people whinge and moan about the illegal Irish when so many green cards were handed out on plates in green card lotteries, when it is actually quite difficult for a US person not only to get a job here, but to keep a job here. I do know of at least 2 cases of US/Canadian citizens being unable to get their work permits renewed because the Irish government wanted to force the company - a US company - to hire an Irish person to do their jobs. If the same thing happened in the US we'd all be up in arms. This is the worst kind of hypocrisy.

In the meantime, we now have refused Bulgarians and Romanians the right to work here. Lets hope they learn from this and respond in kind by placing penal property taxes on Irish people who buy properties in their countries, thus pricing their people out of the housing market. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander I say.

by VeryMad Sat Oct 28, 2006 19:38

For all the supporters of the recent deportations, can I pose a question to you?
How can the Irish government financially support the Amnesty for all campaign in America when they have deported parents of Irish citizens and spouses of Irish citizens?
I'm not debating what Mr Ahern is doing in the states but don't you think it's absolutely laughable and totally hypocritical (again) of this government?

I understand that the Nigerians have a bad stigma cast over them, and I agree with the agrument that the minority have spoilt it for the majority BUT I will not except it!

I mean, I parked my car in Finglas one time and one or a few individuals tried to steal and destroy it but I would NEVER go around Finglas pointing my finger at people and then paint them all with the same brush. I have the COMMON SENSE to know that it was just a few wreckless individuals and the majority of Finglas people I have met are decent people.
BUT then again we are getting back to the concept of COMMON SENSE here, I just think that these people don't actually go to university, REALLY do they hold their lectures in Dublin Zoo or something?

by sane Sat Oct 28, 2006 22:27

The facts.

These people came here illegally (in most cases through the United Kingdom)
They made bogus claims for political asylum.
They were given legal aid courtesy of the Irish people to make their applications, appeals, and jusicial-reviews.
From the moment they arrived here they were fed and supported by the Irish people.
After their claims were found to be bogus in turn by ORAC, the RAT, and the Courts they would have been offered their air-fare home and a re-location grant.
Instead of accepting this further generosity, they decided to brazen it out on the assumption tha,statistically, the Irish authorities seldom actually deport illegal immigrants.

They guessed wrong.

As for the red-herring of Irish illegals in the US..........
The US legislators will decide on these people in accordance with what they consider in the interests of the US. That is their right and duty. If they deport Irish illegals that is their democratic right.
Irish politicians ditto in relation to illegal immigration into Ireland..
Irish politicians can lobby all they like for Irish people whereever they may be. That is their right.
Nigerian politicians ditto.
In considering what is in the interests of Ireland, Irisn legislators will be aware that there is a world of difference in consequences to the receiving country between emigrants from a country of less than 5 million targeting a country of 300 million and emigrants from a country of 150 million targeting one of less than 5 million.

by VeryMad Sun Oct 29, 2006 01:11

But one could argue that the Illegal Irish in America are not running from persecution, as Ireland is a peace loving country, they are not economic immigrants either as Irelands economy is booming at the present time, also the Illegal Irish were very conscious of what they did by overstaying their visa's.
If you look at it from a pure uncompassionate view point, they have no true reason for being Illegal in the states, where as the people being deported from Ireland are mainly from third world countries, were corruption, persecution, injustice, inequality and poverty (just to name a few) are rife.

Also isn't the "Amnesty for all" in America directed at the non-white ethnic groups as well, such as South American's, Asians, Caribbeans ethnic groups?
I''m sure as always there would be a huge difference in the figures if you included these groups OR is the "Amnesty for all" just reserved for the white Irish (as usual)?

So I pose my question again..
What the hell is Ahern doing in the States supporting a NO DEPORTATION campaign when he is deporting vunerable "colored" people here?

by Gerri Sun Oct 29, 2006 01:58

VeryMad you are clearly of low intellect and education or else you are simply taking the piss...

I will spell it out Once Again so maybe you will understand this time.

Now read very, very carefully.

People claiming asylum are claiming to be in danger of life threatening situations - called severe persecution - were they to return to their countries. They claim this persecution is on account of factors such as their Ethnicity, Political Opinion, Nationality or Gender. They claim that there is nowhere in their home state that they can find protection. They claim that they have no option other than to flee.

Asylum is NOT a remedy for Poverty.

Asylum is not a remedy for Corruption.

Asylum is not a remedy for anyone wishing to leave a country which is "third world".

Asylum IS a remedy for very specific issues and is granted to people who come to Ireland found to fulfill the relevant criteria and it could be said for some who don't - but that is another story. In addition, many are allowed to stay NOT having fulfilled the criteria, on humanitarian grounds.

A very small proportion of people are deported each year - they come in many different skin colours and they are NOT just Nigerians. Moldovans, Romanians (who were "white" the last time I looked) as well as Chinese have all been deported.

Pity that deportation wasn't an option for the persistently annoying.

by BrowSa Sun Oct 29, 2006 02:37

For all the supporters of the recent deportations, can I pose a question to you?
How can the Irish government financially support the Amnesty for all campaign in America when they have deported parents of Irish citizens and spouses of Irish citizens?
I'm not debating what Mr Ahern is doing in the states but don't you think it's absolutely laughable and totally hypocritical (again) of this government?

I believe this is what is called a non sequitor. Those directly discharged with the responsibility of managing immigration, are neither allowed or expected to second guess modest government funding of independent organisations in foreign jurisdictions. It is however their job to implement freely accessible, legally sound public policy applicable to this country in relation to immigration. What on earth do you think they should be doing instead?

I understand that the Nigerians have a bad stigma cast over them, and I agree with the agrument that the minority have spoilt it for the majority BUT I will not except it!

Do you mean "accept it?"

Anyway, with Nigerians enjoying an asylum recognition rate of approximately, 1 in a 100, if anything, this is a case where if anything, the majority have "spoilt it" for the minority.

I mean, I parked my car in Finglas one time and one or a few individuals tried to steal and destroy it but I would NEVER go around Finglas pointing my finger at people and then paint them all with the same brush. I have the COMMON SENSE to know that it was just a few wreckless individuals and the majority of Finglas people I have met are decent people.

You are saying that the majority of Finglas people are decent, law abiding people. I would agree. If you had also said that the majority of Nigerian people living here arrived under false pretences and deliberately manipulated the asylum process, I would also agree. Painting people with the same brush works both ways and you are doing just that.

BUT then again we are getting back to the concept of COMMON SENSE here, I just think that these people don't actually go to university, REALLY do they hold their lectures in Dublin Zoo or something?

An interesting theory. Is it profound?

by sane Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:31

Dear Very Mad,

Ireland gives political asylum to persons who can establish, to a rather low standard of probability, that they would be persecuted if sent home.
Ireland gives three bites of the cherry to every asylum applicant. They only need to succeed at one of these stages (ORAC RAT, H/Court) to gain refugee status.
Where asylum applicants are found to be bogus at each and every stage then they are by definition, illegal immigrants.
They are also asylum-cheats who have been found out cynically abusing a system put in place to protect genuine victims of political OPPRESSION (Not poverty).

What you are effectively arguing for is the ridiculous proposition that any Nigerian who has the money to pay criminal gangs of traffickers to get them into Ireland should be allowed stay.

Nonsense!

Bertie Ahern can lobby whosoever he likes. Presumably he thinks it might gain him a few votes at home. However, the US legistature and authorities will decide the fate of Irish illegals in the States. They will decide it on the basis of what they believe in the interests of the US - not in the interests Bertie Ahern.

Nigerian politicians can lobby for Nigerian illegals in a similar manner. Perhaps you should talk to one of your politicians back home when you arrive there?

In the meantime, please grasp the reality that NO government of a country of 5 million people is EVER going to give a carte-blanche to illegal immigration from a country of 150 million.

by VeryMad Sun Oct 29, 2006 14:33

Well I hate to tell you but I am actually not Nigerian, I am an Irish Immigrant (with Nordic background so I'm as white as the driven snow) who has been immigrating back and forth from Ireland since I was knee high.
I then travelled and worked around the world from my late teens to my mid-twenties.
I have seen the devastation and exploitation of these countries all my life (usually from western companies/people with the help of their own governments) and I am disgusted at how callous Irish people are being towards these people and unfortunately it is usually people in authority who are being the hardest.

From what I have seen, there was an influx of Illegals who came into Ireland after 1997 (because the UK were saturated with refugees at that stage..ponder) and the Irish government didn't have a vetting system in place and allowed all and one to stay, now they seemed to have filled their quota and they are now actually deporting "some" people with real experiences and worst of all they are breaking up families, deporting innocent children (who are Irish) and trying to orphan children who are now vunerable to abuse and exploitation.

And btw the comments regarding the Illegal irish ironically are being voiced by American citizens in America who are pro-deportation of their own Illegal immigrants. (just like yourselfs)

Insult me all you like but at least I have a heart!

by sane Sun Oct 29, 2006 15:32

IDear VM,

I didn't insult you unless you consider being mistaken for a Nigerian is an insult.

Nigerian asylum-seekers started coming here in numbers in the late 90s, not because of oppression, but because of the exact opposite.
When democracy was restored to Nigeria the UK began to fast-track asylum applications from Nigerians. At about the same time the US authorities began refusing almost all visa-applications from Nigerians because of the record of visa-abuse by Nigerians and because of concern about the organized crime originating in that country (especially drugs and fraud). Ireland became the recipient of the fall-out of policies made elsewhere by a process of 'displacement'.

Ireland is not responsible for conditions in Nigeria We don't even buy or oil there). Unless Nigerians develop a leadership culture which prefers creating wealth to stealing it from the weaker members of society they will remain poor despite the billions of petro-dollars and aid poured into that country by the West. I am unable to see how allowing illegal emigrants from Nigeria stay in Ireland will do anything to fix the corruption and graft that impoverishes one of the most resource-rich nations on the planet.

Now, that crunch question again: Do you think Ireland should grant residence to any Nigerian with the money to pay criminal gangs of traffickers to bring them here?

By the way, Ireland does not break up families. International law protects the rights of families to reside together only in a country in which all members have a right of residence. In an act of compassion (which he must now heartily regret) Minister McDowell granted a number of illegal female immigrants (mainly) from Nigeria permission to remain in Ireland on the basis of having an Irish born child. They freely accepted the condition that if family unification was their priority they would have to exercise it in Nigeria in accordance with international law. Guess what? A number of Nigerian gentlemen, nowhere to be seen when these ladies arrived pregnant in Ireland, popped up and claimed some entitlement to family re-union (to be exercised in Ireland,of course) on the claim that they were the fathers of the children concerned.

We must certainly have compassion. Indulging asylum-cheats is not compassion.

by VeryMad Sun Oct 29, 2006 19:21

Well 2 out of 3 people insulted me so that was a majority so I just put you in the same box as them, just like the authorities are doing to all Nigerians;)

Of course I wouldn't agree with supporting criminal activities but then we are getting back to a "perfect world theory", I would ask you a similar question;
Do you think it is okay that the Irish government permits high street shops to sell cheap products that were manufactured from child labour, so our little darlings can have two pair of trainers, instead of just one?
I even heard some dope on the radio saying "sure it gives them (the children) something to do, what else would they be doing in those type of countries anyway?" But that's the typical attitude, isn't it?

Also aren't there a large number of Irish working out in Nigeria?
And can you guarantee me that not one product is being sold (probably at a cheaper rate) in Ireland that comes from a company (in some shape or form) that's exploiting Nigeria?

I just feel they we should be a little more aware of what is really happening here, the Irish people have given the authorities the green light to target these people and the authorities are doing it in a cloak and dagger fashion.

by sane Sun Oct 29, 2006 20:57

In answer to your question: I do not agree with child sweaqtshop labour, and I agree that we shouldn't buy goods that are the product of exploitation.

Hopwever, I cannot for the life of me see what that has to do with bogus Nigerian asylum-seekers.

We should do our utmost to ensure that products imported into the EU are not produced by child-labour.

We should also ensure that asylum-cheats are deported.

Asylum fraud is not a victimless activity. It undermines the last resort of genuine victims of oppression. It associates immigration with criminality and by so doing impacts on all immigration, the majority of which is legal. Moreover, the premise that asylum fraud pays, it the marketing assumption upon which the vicious human-traffickers exist. Needless to say, asylum fraud does nothing for the millions whose life-chances are blighted by the corruption endemic in sub-saharan Africa. It only benefits the few who can affoerd the services of the traffickers.

by VeryMad Sun Oct 29, 2006 22:43

I just mentioned the child labour exploitation because that clearly says to me that the Irish government feels that third world nations do not deserve the basic human rights that we here (in the west) enjoy.
Then I also consider that this is the same government that is deciding the fate of these people.
I also can understand what you are saying about legal immigration but I know that is highly impossible even for highly educated Nigerians (and other third world citizens) to immigrate legally.

Also these people who are deported are hit with a life-time deporation sentence within the EU, where as an American or Australian would have a 10 year sentence, I can find no other answer to this other than the immigration system is a racist system.

by sane Sun Oct 29, 2006 23:23

My understanding is that Americans, Nigerians or whoever, once they are deported, are deported forever irrespective of education or any other factor, and irrespective of colour or creed.

That is NOT racist.

by Precious Mon Oct 30, 2006 00:08

ahh here we have it again..the "racist" word rears its head....

Very Mad, you flit from one subject to another as each of your arguments is summarily demolished by one poster or another - now it is child labour (?!).

Can you give us any cogent argument as to how Ireland allowing failed asylum seekers to remain in Ireland would ease the burden on child labour/exploitation? Just one?

You say that it is "highly impossible even for highly educated Nigerians" to migrate legally. Yet again, you are wrong - it is a known fact that those with specialist skills are sought by countries such as Ireland. Regarding the not so well educated, these too are sought but there is of course more competition for these visas.

Editor's Note: Irrelevant trolling and bb-style paragraph edited out. See Guidelines - that things should be closely relevant.

by Blessing Sat Nov 11, 2006 17:26

That doctored photo of the Service Officer with his hand raised and the Caption "ch bien ein GNIR`r" is tasteless in the extreme.

All allegations against this man as well as the one of the man alleged to have assaulted the lady to are completely unfounded. And the implications of the doctored photo are plain to see.

Did the posters of this ever consider that the state employees they are slandering, the Service Officer is very poorly paid. Does he deserve this? imagine if he was of a different skin colour there would be uproar. Amazing the way those claiming to be standing up for peoples rights are actually trampling
all over this persons.

by John Fri Apr 08, 2016 12:55

Look at what happens to Greece, Belgium, Italy, France etc..And you will realise that racism has nothing to do with deporting illegal immigrants.

The agenda pushed by a tiny, very loud and very well funded minority is to replace European people by illegal immigrants. People financing these "organisations" are well known, from George Soros to islamic saudi led organisations.

Some useful idiots are always keen to respond to the current propaganda making us believe that it is racist to say no to illegal immigration.

Just have a stroll in some parts of Europe like Moleenbek on your own and think before helping your country being colonised.

by John Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:52

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Via Gates of Vienna: by Nicolai Sennels

“NICOLAI SENNELS’ LATEST ESSAY EXAMINES THE POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES BEHIND THE BIZARRE STATE OF DENIAL THAT IS IMPOSED ON WESTERNERS BY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

THE DISADVANTAGES OF ISLAM AND MUSLIM IMMIGRATION INTO EUROPE ARE MANY AND OBVIOUS.

Negative economic effects, rising crime and less security, entire neighbourhoods transformed into parallel societies, the frequently negative influence of muslim children in schools and institutions, etc. — all these consequences affect the lives of most children and adults on an everyday level in one way or another.

Many of us have wondered why there still are so many — both ordinary people, Media and politicians — who do not speak openly about, and perhaps do not even realize, the problems.

Being a licensed psychologist and having had years of experience as a publicly known critic of islam and muslim immigration and culture, I will endeavour here to give three psychological explanations for political correctness.

As always, when large groups ignore obvious problems, the issue is one of social psychology:

THE “BYSTANDER EFFECT”

The bystander effect is a psychological phenomenon that explains why people remain passive during emergencies.

Research on the bystander effect started in connection with the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, when several neighbours remained passive while they watched Genovese being stabbed to death.

An example of psychological research in the bystander effect is a study in which a woman pretends she faints. If the subject is alone, he will help the woman in 70 percent of cases.
If there are several people present, only 40 percent of subjects help the woman.

The bystander effect makes spectators to a disaster tend to watch others’ reaction — instead of the situation itself — as a way to assess the seriousness of a situation.

As people in many cases await each other’s reaction, rather than take the initiative, the result may be that nobody does anything — since all are waiting to see if somebody else does something.

If the others do nothing, it is seen as a sign for the individual that the others believe that there is no need for intervention.
This affects one’s own judgment, and thus one’s reaction. The majority’s response acts as a kind of “barometer” for the truth.

If we transfer this phenomenon to political correctness, it means that since the majority do not express criticism of islam, sharia (also called islamization) and muslim immigration, people take it as a “proof” that there is no need to criticize such things.

Conditions for the bystander effect are therefore particularly ripe in cases where people feel uncertain about what is the right thing to do, and as a result use other people’s reaction as a way to assess the situation.

The best way to counter this kind of behaviour is to give people so much information that they are able to make their own decisions.
In addition, it is obviously important that as many as possible do something, so that people who are under influence by the bystander effect acknowledge reality.
It is psychologically important that the people who take the initiative do it in such a way that others will find it easy to identify with it — so avoid anger and unnecessary provocation, show your joy and personal optimism, be relaxed, and only talk about these things when there is a natural reason for it (e.g. family or colleagues mention the subject themselves).

“PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE”

The bystander effect is often connected with pluralistic ignorance.

Pluralistic ignorance is a social psychological phenomenon in which the majority of a group individually reject a norm (e.g. muslim immigration), but at the same time suppose that the majority accepts the norm.

As a result of the desire to be well-regarded by the majority, people accept the norm, even though they secretly oppose it. In this way a democratic process can lead to the acceptance of norms which the majority actually oppose. (like homo marriage, immigration, more eu and so on)

Applying the theory of pluralistic ignorance to the phenomenon of political correctness would mean that the majority actually want less islam, sharia and muslim immigration, but every individual believes that the majority is not against these things.
Because people do not dare to stand up against the “illusory majority”, they refuse to openly criticize these things.

Fear of criticism can therefore pressure the majority not to speak their minds — even though they would actually able to get what they want, if only all dared to raise their hands say what they think.

Pluralistic ignorance is thus made possible partly by the lack of self confidence to stand by one’s position, and partly by a miscalculation of what the majority thinks.

The best way to deal with pluralistic ignorance is therefore to give people courage and show that they are not alone with their viewpoint.
This is accomplished primarily by showing a courageous example oneself.

In addition, it is important to support other critics, so they do not feel vulnerable and alone. Finally, it is vital to spread knowledge and arguments that help people to counter criticism.

“GOOD PEOPLE”

The third explanation consists of a theory of my own. It is based on the assumption that in all cultures and societies there exists a definition of what “a good person” is.

Out of a desire to feel liked and part of the community, most people have a psychological drive to live up to the definition of “a good person”.
But the definition of “good people” is influenced by many things, and is subject to change.

In the old Danish Christian community, you were a good person if you went to church every Sunday.
In societies with a strong work ethic, it is seen as better to care for oneself than live on benefits. In many circles it is seen today as “good” to worry about the climate or ecology — or at least it is bad if you do not care.

When I was a child in the 1970’s, it was hip and Leftist to fight for women’s freedom, criticize the social control imposed by religion and society, and fight for the right to criticize authority and religion.

Nowadays it is a widespread view that “tolerance and openness” characterize “good persons”. This includes a provision that criticism of minorities and others’ standards is “bad”.

Thus we have ended up in a situation where criticism of muslim immigration and islamic religious and cultural standards has become socially unacceptable.

Since only a small minority therefore criticize these things openly, the bystander effect makes many people think that there is no problem — or that it is not so big that it is necessary to speak about it.

The harsh criticism faced by islam-critics (especially among muslims themselves) increases the extent of pluralistic ignorance, because fewer people dare to speak up.
Even though majority are critical of islam, they believe that they are a minority.

People with good self-esteem are better able to maintain their own assessment of their own moral “goodness” without being influenced by others’ criticism or current definitions of “good people”. Thus they are less vulnerable to the bystander effect and pluralistic ignorance.

WHO IS NEUROTIC?

Critics of islam, sharia and muslim immigration are often called racists (expressing hostility against other races), xenophobic (having an irrational fear of the unknown) or islamophobes (having an irrational fear of Islam).

But islam and muslims are not a race, and neither islam nor muslims are unknown, since most of us encounter or read about the phenomenon in one form or another almost daily.

And there’s really nothing irrational in fearing islam, as islam’s holy scriptures say that muslims have a duty to suppress or kill all non-muslims and to spread their faith by any means.

Which islam and many muslims also do, kindly aided by all the people, politicians and media who do not speak against islam, sharia and muslim immigration.

By calling people racists or diagnosing them, political correct lovers of multi-culture attempt to define islam-critics as dysfunctional people or neurotics. But we are not.

PROPONENTS OF ISLAM, SHARIA AND MUSLIM IMMIGRATION, HOWEVER, ARE ACTUALLY VICTIMS OF THE BYSTANDER EFFECT AND PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE.

And, being insecure, many of them follow the current trends and their peers’ views on what defines “good people”.

THERE IS NO REASON TO FEAR SUCH INTELLECTUALLY FLABBY PEOPLE. SO JUST OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND SAY WHAT YOU THINK. YOU ARE NOT CRAZY, EVIL OR NEUROTIC. QUITE THE CONTRARY.

Based on the above-mentioned social psychological theories, it is my conclusion that that we islam-critics are better informed and have better self-confidence than the many who lack knowledge, courage, and personal authenticity to speak about obvious problems.”

by Pedro Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:55

Psychology has indeed played a role in the adoption of pc language and attitudes by citizens in western countries during the past number of decades. Another influence is media portrayal of street and other incidents, which renders bystanders as passive spectators. Yet another influence is the adoption and promotion of pc language by professionals - in academia, in social care, in discourse about multi-ethnic society, in psychology/psychiatry, among other areas - which, having been accepted by the media and relentlessly promoted by the media, has seeped into public mentality. And finally there has been the motivation of ideology by professionals, educationists and politicians, whereby ideology takes precedence over conventional wisdom. It is a vast subject for investigation and fresh thought. Culture, individual consciousness and traditional inherited wisdom are all at stake in the current human condition.

by Bob Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:27

Illegal immigration is a crime.

The actual engineered invasion of Europe by millions of fake refugees, in majority muslim men from countries which are not at war (but real criminal and rapists as we saw in Cologne) will destroy Europe if the people don't stop it.

Example of demographic invasion: To wipe out the Tibetan people, the Chinese communists who invaded Tibet in 1950 have been flooding the country with Chinese people since this time. Today, the Tibetans are foreigners in their own country, oppressed, discriminated, assassinated, their culture and religion on the verge of destruction.

All that happened through massive immigration like the one we see today in Europe.

Think twice before helping your own country being invaded and colonised. Remember how the English evicted you from your own land. this is happening again.