Mass Deportation of Immigrants Blockaded in Dublin. Arrests Ongoing.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Tue Nov 15, 2005 01:39

I am on a coffin ship

is there a life in America?
will we get there?

the splashes you hear
are bodies overboard

we lie in shit on boards
typhoid-sick, shivering, dying

we smell of vomit
no-one will want us

(Congress are angry
tightening the laws
to prevent us coming
to our poorhouse)

there is a thirst
burning my throat

I hear
men and women moaning
I hear
children gone silent

more and more you can hear
bodies tumbling overboard
with funeral splashes


I am the poor of nowhere
the earth is my country
the sea is my grave
a curse be on all borders

by The Fenian's Lament Tue Nov 15, 2005 01:22

What are you talking about lads? The door is closed to the EU??

Who give a rat’s ass!

Have you seen the fortress like defences now up around the FOUR COURTS in Dublin and seen who is manning them?

We now have to pass through a gauntlet of immigrants to gain access to the main building for justice in Ireland although one would have to wonder why we should continue to go there and expect justice.

Who could deny that we should offer employment to non-nationals but surely not at the ratio of five to one that seems to be in control of access there?

If the existence of so many foreigners securing our court gates does not imply that the state is working towards foreign control of our people… then what does?

Go see for yourself – I would have to consider that our time as ‘Irish Nationals’ is almost done!

by SH Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:02

Gerry it is ridiculous that at this stage you continue to fabricate things and attempt to try and lie about what I had said.

To repeat I never said that the EU had a closed border. The only one who ever mentioned a closed border was you. I said the EU does not have an open border and that has been proved beyond doubt. You dont have a clue what an open border is despite me having stated it numerous times on this thread.

You are the only person who thinks that the EU has an open border because quite frankly you are the only person who could be that stupid, after all the links after different posters telling you, you still stupidly believe the EU has an open border. You are 100%completely wrong. Proof has been provided and you have not been able to provide one iota of proof.


You are not debating, you are fabricating. You have no idea what you are talking about, you lie about what I say and you continue to live in a delusional world.

by Joe Public Mon Nov 14, 2005 00:27

Gerry,
Next time you land at Dublin airport you will need to go through Passport control. Now if your within the EU you go throught one door, outside EU goes through a seperate door. Non EU nationals must have visas to enter Ireland which must have been applied for in advance. therefore until they have been granted permission to enter they are unable to "freely visit" Ireland.

This applies to all EU nations when dealing with an external border.

The Shengen agreement only applies to nations within the EU that have signed up and only when travelling between the member states.

Once a non EU national has entered through an external border they can, at the discretion of the nation, enter any other EU nation via an internal border however the Shengen agreement and convention both allow for participating nations to control internal border if they feel it necessary.

If any person was allowed enter Ireland freely then no Refugee, aylsum seeker or other would be stopped at the airport.

I have shown that there is no open border with direct quotes and the links so you can see this for yourself. Any person with eyes can see this when they attempt to enter Ireland. Of course the fact that you have an Irish passport means you will not use the non EU door.

by Gerry McCarthy Sun Nov 13, 2005 13:51 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, County Mayo 094 742923

I don't think that SH/SW/Emma has a clue what she's talking about. She has been unable to answer my question asking her to Prove to me transparently that the E.U has a 'closed border' with the outside world. Also, she never gave me an answer to another question: How come people from all over the world are free to come visit Ireland when they please if she claimed that our border is 'closed' with non-EU states?
Yet, she calls me the "most stupidest man I have ever come across"... It is beyond me why a person like her would throw personal remarks into a debate instead of focusing on the actual debate itself....

by Gerry McCarthy Sat Nov 12, 2005 14:51 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, County Mayo 094 742923

SH/Sw/Emma,
I am still waiting for you to answer my questions that you previously kept sidetracking:

(1)
Prove to me transparently that the E.U has a 'closed border' with the outside world.
(2)
How come people from all over the world are free to come visit Ireland when they please if you claim that our border is 'closed' with non-EU states?

Somehow, I doubt very much that you are able to answer question 1 above because there simply isn't any evidence that can back you up on this issue but you continue to lie about this anyway...

by seedot Sat Nov 12, 2005 02:09

SW - it wasn't a law - it was the constitution. It was changed for everyone, not just asylum seekers. It was a bad change that changes citizenship from a birthright to a bloodright. Peer Review, if you google it, is defined as "evaluate professionally a colleague's work" Can I suggest you stop attempting peer review on IMC until you can be factual and informative. And accept that as a news report this doesn't need anymore peer review.

by SW Sat Nov 12, 2005 00:40

(In the case of Asylum seekers the law was correctly changed to stop the abuse of the system.)


Q.E.D

by R. Isible Sat Nov 12, 2005 00:30

Thanks, that's exactly the point that I was making Kevin. I think that's very clear for everyone to read and it's nice to see you admitting that you were wrong instead of damaging your credibility further.

Now, about the issue of people that have never set foot in Ireland being given Irish citizenship (in some cases when their /parents/ have never even set foot in Ireland!) solely on the basis of bloodlines, please back up my point on this further.

It's been a pleasure working with you.

by Kevin Sat Nov 12, 2005 00:24

The government clearly states that legally resident foreign couples who have children here will be able to get Irish Citizenship for them (subject to terms outlined earlier).

In the case of Asylum seekers the law was correctly changed to stop the abuse of the system.

by R. Isible Fri Nov 11, 2005 21:43

Children born abroad, that have never set foot in Ireland, as long as they have Irish parents, or grandparents are able to obtain Irish citizenship. That's a clear bloodline issue.

Children born in Ireland don't get citizenship unless their parents are Irish or their parents are able to meet the new requirements of 3 years legal residency (I think but am not sure about that period and I don't know what "legal residency" means). So clearly there's another bloodline issue.

Shouting "rubbish" makes anyone doubt _everything_ you say when you're so clearly wrong. Of course, if everything you say is wrong then it makes sense to try and drown out all other information!

by Kevin Fri Nov 11, 2005 21:31

Citizenship is not a bloodline issue....utter rubbish. Anybody who comes here legally and works for a period of time is entitled to residency after a period of time, they can apply for citizenship. Their children are also entitled to Irish Citizenship under certain circumstances. The condition is that the parents must have have been resident legally in Ireland for three out of the previous four years. Sh, you are just pissed that this excludes asylum seekers.

by Joe Public Fri Nov 11, 2005 20:21

Shengen agreement 1985 signed. It reduces border control between France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

Shengen convention 1990 (into effect 1995) includes Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece in abolishing internal borders and created a single external frontier.

As of March 2001, 13 EU Member States are signed up to the Schengen Agreement. They are Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden.

Ireland and the United Kingdom never signed up to the Schengen Convention and have thus not ended border controls with other EU Member States

Ireland and the UK, which together with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man constitute a common travel area for which passports are not needed

(http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/freetravel/frontiers/fsj_freetravel_schengen_en.htm)

Anyone who has a parent or grandparent born in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland can get an Irish passport by applying to your local embassy or consulate.

(http://www.faqs.org/faqs/cultures/irish-faq/part08/section-3.html)

A few points:

1. "created a single external frontier."
2. Ireland and UK are within a common travel border.
3. You dont actually need to be Irish to claim Irish citizenship.
4. People in Northern Ireland can claim either an Irish or British passport.

Ireland has maintained border control and all nations within Schengen still operate external border control.

by Gerry McCarthy Fri Nov 11, 2005 20:05 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

SH/SW/Emma,
No I don't continue to "fabricate". You even stated this yourself only now you're going back on what you said before. I think its more like you not having an idea what an open border is because you seem to think that Europe's border is completly 'closed' to people outside of Europe. A rather ridiculous comment and people would agree.

In that case, how come people from all over the world are free to come visit Ireland when they please if you claim that our border is 'closed' with non-EU states?

The links I put up certainly don't prove that the E.U has a 'closed border'. But the links you put up do not back your statements up claiming that "the EU does not have an open border with the rest of the world, period". Somehow, you can never refrain from throwing personal issues into this debate and its beyond everyone that you think I'm "the only person in the world that thinks the EU has an open border" Think again...

You keep sidetracking my question I keep asking you: If you can prove to me transparently that the E.U has a 'closed border' with the outside world, then you earn a million.

The last link you provided only refered to the referendum issue but did not answer this question. Citizenship through what you claim "bloodline" is unprofounded speculation. So you alone say that I'm the "stupidest man" you have ever come across? Well, you are the stupidest woman I have ever come across that demonises people who don't share the same view as you do on any issue. Get real... This is what a debate is all about and if you can't refrain from throwing personal issues into the equation, then it proves that you are loosing the arguement.

by SH Fri Nov 11, 2005 15:24

You have absolutely no idea what an open border is despite me having stated it several times on this thread. An open border is a system where people are free to enter and live in the country or region. The EU does not have an open border with the outside world. It has an open border with other EU countries that is all. Yet you continue to fabricate saying that I have said the EU has a closed border. I never said that and yet you continue to post falsities and fabricate things. A closed border would be one where the EU allows nobody in and this is completely false and is not what ANYONE on this thread has said. Instead you continue to embarass yourself by saying that the EU has an open border despite me putting links proving otherwise and despite the fact that the links that you put up also prove that the EU does not have an open border.
Again I will state that I have completely proved that the EU does not have an open border with the outside world. This is beyond doubt and yet you continue to post absolute stupidities saying that the EU does have an open border. You are completley 100% wrong, you are the only person in the world that thinks the EU has an open border. An infant with the most average IQ would have been able to grasp that by now. You have not even been able to give 1 link to back up your delusional belief, not one, because it is completely false.

I have conclusively proved that the EU does not have an open border, you are absolutely and completley delusional. Why don't you ring up the EU parliament offices on Molesworth Street, Dublin 2 and hear them laugh at you when you tell them that you think that the EU has an open border with the rest of the world. They will laugh their ass off at you because you are completely and utterly wrong.

Before the referendum we had citizenship by virtue of birth on this island, now we have citizenship through bloodline. This is beyond doubt, yet you continue to try and deny this. You are without doubt the most stupidest man I have ever come across. People can also claim Irish citizenship in America, Romania and Nigeria and indeed all across the world not just the North, and again this does not detract from our citizenship laws having been reversed. Previously you could claim Irish citizenship through virtue of being born on the island. That was reversed completely and the basis is now a bloodtie to the land. This is 100% completely irrefutable. Here is a link to the ICCL about the referendum reversing our citizenship laws

http://www.iccl.ie/constitution/gen/referendum_faq04.pdf

by Gerry McCarthy Fri Nov 11, 2005 14:46 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, County Mayo 094 742923

SH/SW/Emma,
Once again, you are going back and forth on your previous comments about the E.U's open border. I proved that you were confused by some of your previous comments. Let me show them to you again. In one comment, you said: "There is no two sides of the story, the EU does not have an open border with the rest of the world, period". In another, you said: "Nobody hear said that the EU had a closed border". Rather confusing and everyone here will agree.. If you can't stick to your points, then don't bother posting ridicolous comments that go 'back and forth' on this issue because you are only embarrassing yourself. Once again, You did not carefully read my previous comment that stated that NOT 80,000 Irish people (or catholics) live in the North, but over 600,000 actually live in the North when you said: "As for the 80,000 Irish people living in the North". Another fabrication, yet again on your behalf. However, the previous link, as well as your comment did not transparently answer my question I put to you before: If you can prove to me transparently that the E.U has a "closed border" with the outside world, then you earn a million. So prove that this is the case. I can't wait to see this!
Somehow, I doubt very much that the 80,000 recently issued passports by the Irish Government to people in the North had what you termed 'nothing' to do with the citizenship referendum. If our citizenship laws were really "reversed" then do you really think that 80,000 Passports would have really been issued, if that was the case?? In case you don't already know this, getting a Passport has everything to do with being a citizen of a Particular Country. What kind of a low I.Q person would try to deny this fact? How you can still post crap like this is beyond everyone.

by SH Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:40

Once again you continue to fabricate and once again you embarass yourself. The link proved absolutely that the EU does not have an open border. Yet you continue to flabbergast everybody with a breathtaking display of stupidity. Russia is not part of the EU and as such can not be part of the Schengen agreement, if you had bothered to read the link that would have been clear.

Here is a link about the Schengen

http://oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/moving_abroad/schengen_agreement.html

How you can still not understand that the EU does not have an open border is beyond everyone.

Also quit fabricating that I said the EU does not have a closed border because I never said that the EU refuse to allow anyone in. I said that the EU does not have an open border which I have proved conclusively.

As for the passport issues you have not proved anything. I gave a link to the referendum commission which stated what the referendum was about. You have come onto this website and said that the referendum was about a loophole, then it was about our asylum laws and still you do not have the slightest notion what you are talking about. I have had to repeat myself continually because you quite clearly unable to understand basic concepts. The passports issued to Irish citizens in the 6 counties does not detract from our citizenship laws having been reversed.

by Gerry McCarthy Thu Nov 10, 2005 20:41 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, County Mayo 094 742923

SH/SW/Emma,

The link you provided states that Russia 'refused' to sign the Schengen Treaty with the E.U member country; Latvia. Therefore, it was not the E.U's fault, was it? You are going against what you previously stated. In one comment, you said: "There is no two sides of the story, the EU does not have an open border with the rest of the world, period". Now you are saying: "Nobody hear said that the EU had a closed border". So you really are confusing us all with the back and forth approach to this issue. You are even confused on what I said about the 80,000 people applying for Irish Passports in the north. There are not 80,000 Irish people living in the north. There are over 600,000 Irish people (or catholics) living in the north that make up over 40% of its population so what in god's name are you telling me that there are 32 counties in Ireland for? I already know this and I support the issue of a united Ireland more than you would.

But you still haven't answered my question:
If you can prove to me transparently that the E.U has a "closed border" with the outside world, you earn a million.

Do you really think that the citizenship laws have been "reversed" if 80,000 Passports have already been issued to people in the North? I don't think so...

by SH Thu Nov 10, 2005 18:32

It is untrue to say that men or indeed all of the female Nigerian asylum seekers claim asylum on the basis of FGM. The numbers of females seeking asylum on this basis has increased, but the exact numbers aren't available, no man that I have heard of has ever claimed asylum on that basis either.

by puzzled Thu Nov 10, 2005 18:28

If that is the main reason for Nigerians claiming asylum here, how come there are so many men in their 20s?

How does FGM affect them, pray?

by SH Thu Nov 10, 2005 18:14

RAR is an Irish anti racist organisation, and as such we do not have a branch in Nigeria. Amnesty International and other Human rights NGO's do, where they frequently talk about persecution in Nigeria.

As I stated before Prime Time went over to interview deportee's and there was plenty of evidence of persecution from them. I will repeat again that those who have managed to contact us from Nigeria are all in hiding.

FGM is not a muslim practice nor is it confined to Nigeria, I never said that it was. Political asylum is not the only asylum given, perhaps a little time reading is in order for you. FGM is recognised for asylum in other countries and political oppression is not the only reason that people can claim asylum. It is amazing how somebody who claims to be bored couldn't do some basic research so that they would actually know what they are talking about rather than spouting absolute crap, researching would keep you entertained.

by SW Thu Nov 10, 2005 18:01

Hmmm

Have you any proof of SPECIFIC deportees being subject to whatever fanciful claim to asylum they originally asserted?

You know PROOF - not heresy or sweeping generalistations.

Names dates, who and when,

Yes or no?

Please do not blather on about FGM. The majority of Muslims globally could claim "asylum" if it were a POLITICAL reason for asylum.

FGM is not unique to Nigeria fyi.

FGM is a complete red herring in the context of determing POLITICAL asylum, otherwise it would be internationally recognised, but I guess you know that.

You seem to think you know everything else.

Now

Proof NOT abuse.

by SH Thu Nov 10, 2005 17:33

Once again Gerry you continue to fabricate. Nobody hear said that the EU had a closed border, people said it does not have an open border.

http://www.eubusiness.com/East_Europe/050903130311.ikzqzryp

In this link note the following
"The EU's Schengen agreement has removed internal border controls between most EU member states but maintains strict controls on external frontiers. "

Now how much more proof do you need before you finally agree that you have not the slightest notion what you are talking about.

As for the 80,000 Irish people living in the North getting Irish passports that does absolutely nothing to detract from the fact that the basis of our citizenship has changed. I have already posted a link from the referendum commission why don't you actually read it rather than trying to reinvent history. And dont forget there are 32counties in Ireland not 26, dont start reinventing geography now.

by Gerry McCarthy Thu Nov 10, 2005 17:14 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, County Mayo 094 742923

SH/Emma,
What do you mean there 'is no point in trying to argue with that guy'? All of your previous links you provided me do not back you up at all... Your arguement is one sided because there is no link you have provided me with so far that transparently proves that the E.U has what you term: a 'closed' border. Until you can provide me with a link that proves this statement you're making, you continue to confuse us all. If you think 'Im trying to re-invent history' then I would surely recommend that you think again because you are painting a different picture on the recently passed citizenship referendum as something completly different. You obviously didn't read one of the previous facts I stated in one of my comments that 80,000 Passports were recently issued to people in the north who wanted to avail of an Irish Passport.

Is this reversing our citizenship laws??.

by SH Wed Nov 09, 2005 14:31

Do you know how many asylum seekers claim they will be murdered or ritually sacrificed? Of course you don't and yet you come on here and post trying to claim that they all are. Absolutely ridiculous. They flee claiming persecution and if they are deported they go into hiding, of course you would prefer them to be persecuted. Have you any proof that they are not persecuted? Of course you don't, pathetic.

Prime Time went over and interviewed deportee's. There was plenty of proof of persecution in that programme. Case closed, unless of course you have proof otherwise, which of course you don't.

There is plenty of evidence of persecution in Nigeria from Amnesty International and other NGO's working in Nigeria. There is also plenty of evidence of FGM taking place in Nigeria, the WHO estimate that between 50-60% of females in Nigeria have that brutal procedure performed on them. The evidence is there in plentiful supply. The real issue is whether you are too blinded by racism to believe it or not.

by SW Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:24

SH, your answer is no.

No need to elaborate. Debate closed.

by Kevin Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:14

Ok so SH, you can't provide any evidence as to how many of these deportees have been murdered or even ritually sacrificed. So basically all this is complete nonsense, some of the excuses these people give for claiming asylum belong in the laughter lounge.

All you have to go on is the claims of a good old kunle and a few others, give me a break!

by SH Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:52

Those who are deported to Nigeria are handed over to the Nigerian authorities on their return. They are then put in prison until they can bribe their way out. Of those deported who have managed to contact us they are all in hiding. Prime Time did a programme on it and traveled to Nigeria to interview some of those deported and these women were hiding and living in absolute poverty. Kunle who was deported earlier in the year has also been interviewed extensively on his return and gave his story about what happened to him. Unfortunately it is impossible to stay in contact with the majority of those who we know have been deported but those who have been in contact have given vastly different stories to what the government claimed.

by SW Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:19

So, have any of the deportees been subject to whatever fanciful claim to asylum they originally asserted?

This is the point after all in protesting deportations, is it not?

Could RAR post something of substance from this round of removals or indeed, any previous removals where a claimant has suffered the fate, RAR say is inevitable on return..

by SH Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:09

You are right Emma. The only lunatic to believe that the EU has an open border has posted here. Not only that he believes that the EU parliament is non governmental and the Oasis.gov website, an Irish government website is, is non governmental. Not only has he failed to prove anything he has said, quite simply because it is untrue, he continues to repeat the lie in an idiotic attempt to try and make people think it is true. A truely astonishing display of a lack of intellect, facts and sanity from Gerry.

by Emma-RAR Tue Nov 08, 2005 17:07

'SH' There is no point in arguing with that guy your not going to change his mind.

by SH Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:43

Everything you have said is wrong. You cannot prove what you said is right because it is completely wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about but continue anyway making an absolute fool of yourself.
What I have put down is factual, it is reality and only lunatics try to deny it. You are currently the only person in the world that thinks that the EU has an open border. How absurd you are. There is no confilcting sides here apart from truth and your absurd untruths. Everything in my last posts were true, it is only you that deny it because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You post here in a ludicrous attempt to reinvent history and expose us to your delusional rants and then you attempt to say that there is another side to fact. You are absolutely and completely delusional with utterly no basis in reality.


Nothing you have said was backed up with links. Your links even proved what I was saying. Showing how idiotic you are you have now went on to say that the links were from NGO's when in fact they were from the Irish Dept. Of Justice and the European Parliament, as everyone can see you continue to fabricate everything, you continue to try and reinvent things. Both the Dept. Of Justice and the European Parliament are clearly not Non Governmental. All you have done since you have come on this website is fabricate posts, attempted to reinvent history and now you have just downgraded the Dept. Of Justice and the European Parliament to Non Governmental status. Is there anything else delusional you would like to do? You have done absolutely no research, you have embarassed yourself continually on this thread and have made your self look utterly delusional.

Here is something to refresh your memory about the CITIZENSHIP REFERENDUM. Note how there is NOTHING about our asylum laws in it
http://www.refcom.ie/RefCom/RefComWebSite.nsf/0/E8DACBFC3CD2BB0480256EA5005C6A50

by R. Isible Tue Nov 08, 2005 02:57

You have completely failed to demonstrate what you claim. It seems that you are relying on some private uses of the phrase "open border" that are impenetrable to mere humans. It would be best for the purposes of communication if you were to stick to the usual usage of the phrase. Otherwise you run the risk of confusing us all. Thanks.

by Gerry McCarthy Mon Nov 07, 2005 23:00 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

SH/Emma,
Full spectrum dominance-This is your approach. That's one thing I now realise. Deny every fact, everything you say is never wrong.... Now, do you see the insanity of this idea? You obviously do not have a single clue of what the implications are between balancing two sides of the story. Everything you have said in your previous comment demonstrates that this is total tunnel vision. If you say that I am 'trying to re-invent history', then think again because you have no proof whatsoever in what you stated in your previous 6 points that they are true. Rather, they are just another casual displacement of words. Everything I previously told you was backed up with the links I provided but you try to denounce them as false or otherwise. For your information, they were obtained from non-governmental (independent) websites so save it the thought of saying they were 'non-independent' sources. A little more educational research goes a long way.. I'm beginning to think that I am talking to a child here because an adult would certainly not go around in circles repeating the same false stuff over and over again, like you are.

by SH Mon Nov 07, 2005 14:06

Once again you could never be more wrong, once again you post blatant fabrications and once again you waste my time having to respond to this idiocy.

Everything you have written is completely unfactual and you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Point one: There is no two sides of the story, the EU does not have an open border with the rest of the world, period. This is completely irrefutable and only an idiot would keep on saying that there is. Your links even prove this, yet you continue to miss it. There would be no illegal immigration in Europe if it had an open border as people could freely move and live where they wanted.

Point 2: In 2004 there was a citizenship referendum. It was a vote on our citizenship and nothing else. Again this point is irrefutable. There is no other side, that is what the referendum was on. All you are doing is trying to reinvent history.

Point 3 Nobody is trying to reverse the referendum. Nobody said anything like that here. In fact I have already stated this point in response to a previous poster. However as with all points from you, you completely invent things.

Point 4: The EU does not have a relaxed border. Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge would be able to tell you that Fortress Europe has anything but a relaxed border.

Point 5: I have to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, passports are different to an open border. Yet you continue to ignore this and come out with utter nonsense.

Point 6: People from outside the EU are not free to reside with in the EU regardless of whether they have a passport or not. What you said is completely made up and is about as far removed from reality as you can get.

You quite simply have still been unable to grasp the most basic concepts. You continue to repeat fabrications and one can only hope that you are a child because I hope that their is no Adult who can be that foolish.

by Gerry McCarthy Sat Nov 05, 2005 22:51 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

Sh/Emma, (or whatever your name is),
Once again, you need to question your intelligence because you are trying to distort everything as unfactual or biased. What you have told me about an open border is only your side of it. If you had properly read the link I provided you with in my last comment detailing the E.U's policy along its 'open border' with the outside world, then you would fully realise how open the E.U's border with the outside world actually is. Call the referendum whatever you like: citizenship, Constitution reform on asylum policy etc just to waste peoples time... No, I'm not trying to re-invent history actually. You certainly are by attempting to reverse the constitution ammendment last year which people voted for. I can't believe you would say something as ludricous as your last sentence. As it is, the E.U has a very relaxed open border and if it were to utterly scrap just the basic checks like passport controls, then I can tell you there would be a lot of crime and drug trafficing... People from outside the E.U are free to reside in the E.U as long as they have a valid passport to legally enter the E.U. Try going to the United States and see how stricter their system actually is in contrast to the E.U's relaxed system. How do you understand that?

by Emma-RAR Sat Nov 05, 2005 17:01

"You are mistaken Emma - asylum can also be sought on the grounds of membership of a particular social group, which includes gender"

Over 90% of applications for asylum are turned down -
In harding any situations women are giving asylum because of gender that would include rape, sexual violience. domestic violience etc. I think you missed my point FGM is still not taken into consideration for asylum, women who have applied on those grounds are turned down it is not considered a religious or political act and according to the justice department it does not fit the critera to apply for asylum.

by SH Fri Nov 04, 2005 16:22

You never cease to amaze me with your ability to make yourself look more foolish with each post you make. Not only do you continue to try and reinvent history but you continue to fail to grasp what an open door is despite me having told you several times.

The EU does not have an open border policy. This is fact and only an utter moron would continue to try and deny that it is. My points are not one sided because they are fact. You continue to embarass yourself by not being able to understand these basic facts. I will repeat because you quite obviously are a slow learner, Ireland and the EU does NOT HAVE AN OPEN BORDER. People from outside the EU are not allowed to freely enter the EU to live and work. How can you not grasp this basic fact is beyond everyones comprehension.


Now let me refresh your memory. Last year we had a CITIZENSHIP REFERENDUM. It was not about our asylum laws. Nobody claimed it was until we had the misfortune to read your posts. I repeat there was no vote on our asylum laws and there never has been a referendum on our asylum laws. Yet you attempt to rewrite history in the most idiotic manner possible, by trying to continualy repeat it until someone else believes it. Your link is utterly pointless and only proves that you do not have the slightest notion what you are talking about. If the EU had an open border policy then there would be no illegal immigration as anyone could enter the EU to live and work. How do you not understand that?

by Gerry McCarthy Fri Nov 04, 2005 15:53 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

SH/Emma or whoever you are,
you need to question your intelligence because really and truely, your stories are completly one sided. The information you provided to me is not balanced. Let me refresh your memory: there was a vote in 2004 to ammend our constitution in a bid to uphold/reform our asylum laws(or whatever you wan't to call it) because people voted in favour of it, remember now? Actually, I'm not pulling facts from what you call 'absolutely nowhere'. Click on the link below and it will inform you about the E.U' s factual policy on illegal immigration along its 'open borders' with the outside world. Obviously, you have your own definition of the word 'fact' because you only recognize the one's that are in favour of your opinion.

by SH Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:02

Once again Gerry you continue to post absolute crap. I really am beginning to question your intelligence because quite frankly you don't seem capable to grasp the most basic concepts and the most fundamental facts.

First of all you need to read the previous posts again where you will discover that I asked no such question, you made it up. Secondly there was no vote in 2004 to uphold our asylum laws and there never has been a vote to uphold our asylum laws. I find it amusing that you say that you continue to show me facts because quite simply you aren't. You are pulling "facts" from absolutely nowhere with no basis in reality. I would never ask you for information because you are incapable of providing it.

by - Thu Nov 03, 2005 20:44

You are mistaken Emma - asylum can also be sought on the grounds of membership of a particular social group, which includes gender.

by Emma-RAR Thu Nov 03, 2005 20:38

You cannot apply for asylum on the grounds of FGM as it is not taken into consideration, asylum can be sought on the grounds of religious and political persecution and the government do not see this as a political or religious act.

Ireland has no legislation to protect women and children from mutilation but various other European countries and the united states and canada have brought in legislation to prohibit this act, until Ireland brings in legislation asylum will not be granted on grounds of fgm.


In Nigeria well over 50% of women are mutilated and there is a high rate of women and children bleeding to death during and after the operation if lucky enough to survive women are crippled with health problems for the rest of their lives, probably over half of Nigerian women I have talked to about this have been mutilated and not all applied for asylum even though mutilated on grounds of fgm. justice department officals are completely ignornant to the practice of fgm and tell women they are lying even after they submit medical evidence.

women who have suffered or will suffer fgm if deported should be granted automatic asylum this is not only a womens issue its an issue of human rights, people have to realise that fgm is the equivilant of male castration.

What the practice involves.

What is FGM?
Female Genital Mutilation is the removal or part removal or part removal of the clitoris. In Nigeria where most cases of FGM in Ireland are from there are three main types performed.

Clitordectomy-where the clitoral hood with part or all the labia minora are removed
Exision( the most common practice)- where both the clitoris and part or all the labia minora removed.
Infibulation( most severe but the least common)-is where the clitoris and parts or all the labia minora are removed and incisions are made on the labia majora creating a raw surface. These surfaces are sewn or pinned together leaving only a tiny pinhole opening to let out urine or menstrual blood.

What are the dangers of FGM?
The horrendous conditions of FGM often result in death; the operation in the majority of cases is performed by an untrained midwife in the most appallingly unhygenic circumstances. Blunt and unsterile objects such as razor blades, broken glass and sharp stoned are used which can lead to infection and HIV/AIDS. The age of women subjected to FGM varies from a few days old up till marriage or childbirth.

Why is FGM practiced?

It is believed FGM is a rite of passage into adulthood, often in a child's community a ceremony will take place to celebrate her trasition into womanhood. It is believed that FGM will promote chastity and help maintain her virginity before marriage and prevent her from becoming sexually active.

by Gerry McCarthy Thu Nov 03, 2005 20:31 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

SH,
Me doing more research? I don't think so... I'm talking about EXACTLY what you previously requested to know. Certainly, you are the one that is confused about the issue here because no matter what facts I'll continue to show you, I don't think that you will acknowledge them anyway... Didn't the overall number of people vote to uphold our asylum laws to cope with mass migration in 2004? I suppose that if you had your way on this issue, you wouldn't let the people decide but would go about it your own way.

by SH Thu Nov 03, 2005 15:43

Mabel you are confused as to what an open border is. An open border is a system where people can enter the country to LIVE AND WORK freely. EU citizens can enter Ireland and live and work freely, non eu citizens can't they must have a permit. You are confusing an open border with security at airports and they are completely different issues so please don't mix them up.

by Mabel Murray Thu Nov 03, 2005 15:31 mabelmurray at iol dot ie Dublin

Actually they're not. They are the same. Living in the real world, these are a part of every Countries frontier and I have faith in our system. The only difference is that it is not as heavily controlled as the likes of the U.S.A's frontier control system. Ireland's frontier system is actually quite laxed. If Ireland didn't have an open border with the outside world, then there would be uproar but I'm afraid it does!

How is it that people from outside the E.U can enter Ireland if you claim that we 'do not have an open border'?

by SH Wed Nov 02, 2005 17:58

Ireland does not have an open border. We have an open border with other EU countries but not the rest of the world. I never said we had an open border with the rest of the world. Don't confuse the idea of an open border with security and passports as they are completely different discussions. Previous posters continue to confuse the two despite me already saying that the issues are seperate.

by Mabel Murray Wed Nov 02, 2005 17:43 mabelmurray at iol dot ie Dublin

SH,
I have a question I'd like to ask you? Have you done research on Ireland's open border policy yourself? From a previous comment, you disputed the fact that Ireland's open border was less so than the U.S. Have you ever travelled to the U.S? If not, then the authorities there are very constraint. When entering Ireland, the authorities don't frisk you, don't do a shoe swab and various things like they did to me when I was going to the U.S. I am up for an intelligent discussion and perhaps you could answer my question.

by SH Wed Nov 02, 2005 16:47

"Please click on the link below to answer your previous question relating to the issue of citizenship and open borders you wished to know."

Gerry what the hell are you talking about? I never asked any question like this. You continue to be absolutely confused

"Perhaps, if you done a little research, you would find this out."

Again confusion emenates from you. Perhaps you should ask a friend to help you when you post on indymedia because you really don't know what you are talking about and nobody else can make any sense of it either.


"In contrast to the U.S, Ireland has a much more open border"

A rather ridiculous comment, what is a "much more open border", how have you measured this?


"relating to your previous statement that eastern european immigrants are legalised very quickly, I doubt very much that this the case because the law applies to everyone."

Again confusion, I never said anything about eastern europeans. The poster used the thousands of eastern europeans who were here illegally at the time of accession who were legalised very quickly and this is most definitely the case.

by Gerry McCarthy Wed Nov 02, 2005 15:01 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

SH
Please click on the link below to answer your previous question relating to the issue of citizenship and open borders you wished to know. Perhaps, if you done a little research, you would find this out. In contrast to the U.S, Ireland has a much more open border. relating to your previous statement that eastern european immigrants are legalised very quickly, I doubt very much that this the case because the law applies to everyone.

by seedot Wed Nov 02, 2005 14:08

and not from a stance of claiming that particular brand and trying to prevent trademark infringements, more because it misses some of the key elements that I would find attractive about anarchism.

While I would not claim anarchism as my personal straitjacket, I do start looking at migration from a position of open borders. Some of this comes from personal experience as a migrant (from, not to, ireland), some from a political belief in liberty. But I would propose two rationales for a policy that at least starts with open borders and then justifies each restriction on movement.

Firstly, I believe that restrictions do not impact on migration - rather they impact on assimilation. They create borders within the host country, classes of workers who are outside the regulatory framework, residents whose existence is precarious. While I can see merit in arguments for certain restrictions around access to supports and benefits, and even a security argument for entry control I think any restrictions here should be implemented in light of their possible impact on assimilation.

Secondly, an element of anarchist philosophy that attracts me is the idea of prefigurative organisation - extended to policy setting. Maybe this makes me some type of reformist anarchist, but I would agree with your disavowal of the 'big bang' approach to political activity. However, on examining policies around immigration we should, I believe, looking at the world we want to have rather than await some mythical future destruction of capitalism and in the meantime adopt a 'transition' approach (can't remember the jargon). On that basis the principle of open borders would fit with a prefigurative approach.

On the economic arguments - countries that have boomed have traditionally had an open door policy to inward migration. Compare Spain and the Netherlands in the 16th century and the impact of their migration policies. But this is onyl one side. I would propose that a factor in the Irish boom of the 1990's was the impact of the 1980's wave of migration from ireland. Unlike other waves these groups a) assimilated faster into their host communities and b) retained links with ireland which then became very valuable in later years. So the 'brain drain' that we feared in the 80's can now appear a sort of extended international internship which greatly benefitted the country people migrated from as well as the destination countries.

Final section on debate - it's good to have a debate on these issues and I agree with the impact of the referendum campaign. However, I do not think the editorial decision to use the phrase 'rising tide of racism' is unjustified. I recently had dinner with the HR manager of an American multi-national based here. He was discussing the march tomorrow and how the union in his workplace had requested time for members to attend. He supported this on the basis of, if not racist, at least xenophobic views. Storing up problems for the future was his phrase. Yet at the same time he was planning to run a recruitment programme for his needs next year in Eastern Europe. I think his view was that immigration should be limited, but not for his companys needs ;-). This seems to be a standard view - we want the personal (and economic) benefits but do not look at the needs of immigrants in planning our policies. This to me is where we will store up problems, not in the immigration per se.

by SH Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:26

If you ask immigrants, be it asylum seekers or migrant workers, if they would have prefered to stay and work in their own countries under different circumstances the majority would say they would have. However you seem to be suggesting that we should stop immigration until we overthrow capitalism and this would be wrong. The root causes of global inequality do need to be tackled simultaneously and there are groups that are addressing this, as no doubt you are aware.

As for your questions

"Would it be dishonest to have open borders without first abolishing capitalist control of the international labour market?"

No it wouldn't. There is capitalist control over the domestic labour market aswell, what is needed is a strong organised domestic labour force, be it in trade unions or other similar organisations.

"Is migration not a symptom of global inequality, not a solution?"

Nobody was suggesting that immigration was a solution to global inequality.

"How do you justify the economic argument for migration?"

Any person has the right to flee persecution of any kind be it physical or economic. People should be free to try and provide the best possible life for themselves and their families. Immigration is not detrimental to the host economy and to stop immigration on the basis of overthrowing capitalism first is wrong.

"If you’re a statist socialist, how would parochial protectionism alleviate or contribute to global inequality?"

I never mentioned protectionism and it is irrelvant to this thread. You could write an article for another thread to discuss this. Protectionism isn't neccessarily a bad thing for third world countries and the debate around "free trade" should be discussed.

Are you honestly suggesting that people should be forced to live in poverty until we overthrow capitalism?

by anti-fashion Wed Nov 02, 2005 05:23

Abuses of Human Rights by the State deserve to be highlighted, and therefore, this is a worthy story. My objections are with its unsubstantiated aspects.

context - my view on political asylum from above link:
"I’m glad there’s a political asylum system because the needs of political victims can be prioritised (supposedly). Political asylum is no more a solution to repression throughout the world, than is open borders to economic exploitation.

Open borders in the present economic order would be a gang-master’s charter, as well as being environmentally unsustainable. Impoverished areas of the world would be stripped of their talents even more (like the Scottish clearances), and the root causes would remain un-addressed.

Without simultaneously tackling the root causes of global inequality (i.e., corporatism), open borders is a nightmare, not a dream.


Still would like the questions in the previous comment answered.

by anti-fashion unconvinced Wed Nov 02, 2005 04:36

I agree with R. Isible that the level of debate has been poor enough. Writers of articles play no small part in determining the quality of discussion that ensues in comments, but more importantly, the authors of this piece, as editors who made it into a feature, have extra responsibility in maintaining or augmenting the reputation of the site as a whole.

R. Isible’s justification of the misleading and sensationalist aspects of the piece ring hollow. What “rising tide”? Which politicians? Such inaccuracy in a feature on the front page can only ever hope to preach to the converted or mislead the ignorant, and as such, undermine the credibility of indymedia.ie.

I own that it is probably impossible to write coherently without an agenda, but should truth on this site be sacrificed to satisfy personal propagandising ventures on the part of some editors? Slip-shod features do a dis-service, not only to the campaign in question, but also, as I’ve intimated, to indymedia as a whole.

As to the extent to which racism exists in Ireland in the first place (regardless of “rising tide”s); your insistence on portraying migration issues within the framework of a racist discourse, itself limits the depth of debate, as well as limiting your potential audience and engaging with them.

‘Race’ is seen as an issue, primarily, be elements of the marginalised in this country. Why expend so much effort at attacking the straw man?

Regarding SH and open borders, some basic questions remain unanswered from
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70181 where I posted as anti-fash and anti-fashion.

among the central questions unanswered are:
Would it be dishonest to have open borders without first abolishing capitalist control of the international labour market?

Is migration not a symptom of global inequality, not a solution?

How do you justify the economic argument for migration?

If you’re a statist socialist, how would parochial protectionism alleviate or contribute to global inequality?

The racism that underpins everything else is the ‘race to the bottom’, and ‘the race for non-renewable resources’. We win this anti-racist campaign, all else will follow.

by SH Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:38

Once again Gerry open borders are different to the issue around passports. I have stated this before yet you continue to ignore it. We have open borders in europe for eu citizens, this is indisputable yet you seem to not understand this basic concept. Passports are still needed for ID purposes, but the ID issue is different to the issue of having an open border with the rest of the EU.

by SH Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:15

For the last time Gerry there WAS NO LOOPHOLE. Citizenship was granted on the basis of a person being born on this island. This was the basis of giving citizenship since the foundation of this state. Yet you claim to have researched this issue, your research leaves a lot to be desired since you have missed this historical fact. There was no loophole and your attempts to repeat this untruth will not make it one.

by ch-ch-changes Mon Oct 31, 2005 14:09

I wrote 'typically' - not always true but generally so.

Ive traveled over those borders in a bus and never was once stopped or asked for ID or passports. The time you traveled may have been different, perhaps because of of the 7/7 bombing it was different, I dont know.

Borders are different things under schengen than they used to be.

People should be as free to move as capital, IMO.

'also get deported like any other person that enters the country illegally.'

This also is not true in reality - in Ireland there were thousands and thousands illegali immigrants of eastern/central european countries from Accession Countries that were instantly 'legalised' after MayDay 2004 - technically the Irish State could deport them today for being in Ireland illegally once.

The Irish State chooses not to do this. Yet McDowell is still obsessed with Africans and especially the threat posed by African children.

by Gerry McCarthy Mon Oct 31, 2005 13:27 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

Certainly, there seems to be painting of the word 'racist' on anyone like myself who gives a different opinion to SH. I can see this by your aggressive reactions to anything I have pointed out to you previously, SH. Referring to the previous comment that people crossing from France into Germany don't need to show their passport. Uhhh, this is simply NOT true. I was there this summer and I had to present my passport to the passport inspectors as I was crossing from Stragbourg (France) into Manheim (Germany). I hope this satisfies your previous statement that denies this fact. Referring to the previous statement: "why it is not a problem to have white European immigrants but undesirable to have African or third world immigrants". Noone is adopting this approach because Eastern European illegal immigrants who enter countries like Germany or Ireland illegally, also get deported like any other person that enters the country illegally.

by M Cotton Mon Oct 31, 2005 11:46

Last week, a solitary protestor from the Immigration Control Platform was to be seen picketing the school of Great Agbonlahor. This is in contrast to the more than 3,000 signatures from local people on behalf of the Great Justice Campaign . Interviewed by the Irish Examiner Miss Aine Ni Chonaill complained at what she saw as the 'politicisation' of schools in Ireland who were supporting campaigns to help children to stay in the country. Presumably, though, if the school was arguing the opposite case Miss Ni Chonaill, who is a teacher herself in a local secondary school, would be delighted. Confronted by the unpopularity of her viewpoint, instead, she would like to see her opponents silenced.

If anyone wants to see raw racism in evidence they can visit the ICP website at:

http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/

Among all the cliched references to 'political correctness' (and when will people ever give up on that claptrap) you will find casuist arguments for why it is not a problem to have white European immigrants but undesirable to have African or third world immigrants. It's all pretty stomach churning - with much talk of 'defending our borders' etc. Olivia Agbonlahor and her two children are not people from whom the country needs defending.

Even 10-15 years ago a group like the ICP would not have had the nerve to rear its ugly head.

by R. Isible Mon Oct 31, 2005 03:32

1) Conor Lenihan still holds his seat after his appalling remark

2) See e.g. the racist attitudes expressed in the link below

That seems like sufficiently robust evidence to at least indicate that there is a rising tide of racism.

However, that is merely a distraction from the lack of /any/ evidence being produced by those attempting to dispute SH's arguments.

by ch-ch-changes Mon Oct 31, 2005 01:57

'If I am travelling from France to Germany by car, foot or by aeroplane, I have to show my passport to the authorities there.'

uhhh this is typically NOT true.

both those countries are in the schengen system so, typically, you do not need to show your passport.

Ireland is not, however, a schengen country.

by anti-fashion Sun Oct 30, 2005 19:24

déjà vu all over again

Irish Indymedia Editorial Group wrote:
“Amid a rising tide of racism” [evidence?] “fuelled by the rhetoric of prominent politicians (who refer to Turkish workers as “kebabs”), i.e., one remark by one politician called Conor Lenihan.

All articles should be accurate, but when something put together by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group (or made into a feature by them), contains inaccuracies or exaggerations designed to further the hyperbole of a moral panic, then, this reflects badly, not only on other indymedia editorials and features, but also on the site as a whole.

Such subjective bias and bad journalism might be okay as propaganda, but is indymedia about preaching to the converted, or worse still, misleading people into the right or proper way of thinking?

No surprise that Conor Lenihan’s belicosity should be milked for all the approbrium deserved, but at the very least, the above disinformation is unsubtle and counter-productive in the long run.

by R. Isible Sun Oct 30, 2005 17:54

QUOTE: "THERE WAS A LOOPHOLE in the system" You must provide clear evidence for this. All you've done is asserted it. If you can't provide the evidence then don't state it. Your opinions on the opinions of "the Irish people" are not germane or factual.

by Gerry McCarthy Sun Oct 30, 2005 14:57 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

SH,
you keep ignoring the facts that THERE WAS A LOOPHOLE in the system before the referendum was passed. I have researched this but yet, you continue to ignore the true facts. Whether you are in favour of the truth or not, it did exist and this is not fiction. Once again, the issue of an open border refers to people being allowed to enter the country on condition that they show their passports to the authorities, just like ANY other country. What is your alternative- Are you suggesting that we scrap our passport controls totally? There is no difference between the passport control and an open border. If I am travelling from France to Germany by car, foot or by aeroplane, I have to show my passport to the authorities there. Why? Because I am entering a different country. Once again, a little more research will show the principles of the need to have a passport control.

by SH Sat Oct 29, 2005 19:41

We now have citizenship by bloodline and quite simply that is irrefutable. Secondly as I have stated repeatedly on this thread there was no loophole, the referendum completely reversed the very basis of our citizenship. Thirdly I am very well researched and yet you continue to ignore the facts and parrot on, it is time for you to do research and stop wasting my time reponding to your UNTRUTHS. Fourthly the issue of passports is different to an open border AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE. So would you please do some BASIC research. It is ignorance in the extreme to continue to ignore the most fundamental FACTS.

by Gerry McCarthy Sat Oct 29, 2005 14:10 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo. 094 742923

SH,
With respect to your comment that 'we have citizenship by bloodline', I do not think that this is true and the Irish people would agree with this. Firstly, our citizenship laws have been changed because of the previous loophole in the system. I would do a little more educational research if I were you. Perhaps you don't recognize what this loophole was, but whether you do or not, it did exist. Also, 80,000 passports have recently been issued to people in the six counties who wanted to avail of an Irish passport. I doubt that reversed our citizenship laws under the G.F.A. Every EU country has a passport control for people entering their country. What are you suggesting? That we abolish our passport controls altogether? This would have profound consequences if we did.

by SH Sat Oct 29, 2005 13:18

The numbers of pregnant asylum seekers coming to Ireland has not dropped drastically in fact the numbers coming to Ireland to escape FGM has increased. You are what the government would call a "useful idiot" as you believe what they say without looking at the actual evidence. The Masters of the materenity hospitals did not ask for the referendum they asked for more resources They numbers of asylum seekers coming late in pregnancy was miniscule. In fact one of the Masters of a maternity hospital recently restricted the numbers of all pregnant women giving birth in his hospital as he was so short of resources. But of course you believe McDowell and not the actual evidence because quite clearly you are blinded by bigotry.

Kevin we have citizenship by bloodline now. Everyone acknowledges that except you. McDowell acknowledges that, the government acknowledges that, everyone except you. The three year rule is still in it, but that does not detract from it being citizenship by bloodline. What next, another new bizzare argument from you. You really should stick to the facts. And asylum seekers, they are here legally under Irish and International law so spare us your pathetic, untrue and outright bigotted views. You know nothing and you continue to ignore the proper advice to go and research and spare us you biggoted uneducated views.

by Kevin Fri Oct 28, 2005 20:45

Sh, you know exactly what I meant about the Citizenship referendum. The number of Nigerian mothers coming here at a late stage in pregnancy has dropped. This is obviously because they can't gain citizenship for their children that way. That is what I meant about the desired affect.

You say in a later comment that we have now made it a blood line issue, utter rubbish! Foreign nationals who come here LEGALLY can gain Irish citizenship. Falsely claiming asylum is not the way to get it.

"Non-national parents of children, born in Ireland on or after 1 January 2005, must prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland. This will be evidenced by being resident legally in Ireland for three out of the previous four years immediately before the birth of the child. On proof of a genuine link to Ireland their child will be entitled to Irish citizenship."

Source: http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/migration_and_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

Enough said!

by SH Fri Oct 28, 2005 18:08

The figure of 50-60% is given by the World Health Organisation. Not every asylum seeker seeks asylum on this basis. It would indeed be quite strange for a man to seek asylum on this basis. However you should not confuse immigrant with asylum seeker as they are different. An open border policy is one where people have freedom of movement between countries, the issues of passports and ID is different, some proponents still favour these others don't. We have open borders within the EU for EU citizens, however we still need our passports. Ireland does not have an open border with the rest of the world. The referendum did reverse our citizenship laws. Our citizenship was granted on the basis of birth on this island, now it is based on blood line. I hope this satisfies your questions.

by Gerry McCarthy Fri Oct 28, 2005 17:49 mccarthy.gerry at indigo dot ie Castlebar, Co Mayo 094 742923

To 'SH',
How do we know that 50- 60% of Nigerian women have what you call "mutilation" performed on them? Secondly, how do we know that their excuse is genuine because every immigrant uses this excuse? What do you mean by "an open border" policy? One where immigrants do not need a passport or ID to enter the country?? Ireland already has an open border with the outside world. Referring to the GFA, the recent referendum did not reverse the citizenship laws because 80,000 passports have recently been issued by the Government to people in the six counties who wanted to avail of an Irish passport.

by SH Fri Oct 28, 2005 16:44

Kevin, Ireland has a work permit system, I will repeat a WORK PERMIT system. It is a system that has come in for much criticism and the governement are introducing new legislation on the issue. If you had bothered to even read the links that you posted you would have seen that.

FGM is not about Sharia law and it is not confined to the northern states. The WHO put a figure of between 50-60% of nigerian women who have had the mutilation performed on them. In fact more christians then muslims have the operation performed on them, so once again your blatant ignorance comes through. The citizenship referendum has had nothing to do with the drop in applicants. The drop in applicants has been a worldwide trend. Are you stupidly suggesting that the referendum dropped the numbers worldwide?

Once again Kevin a little research would go a long way. But again either you are too stupid to do this or you are blinded by bigotry.

by Kevin Fri Oct 28, 2005 14:55

Perhaps you missed the fact that it is a 2 tier green card, one for highly skilled individuals, and 1 for low skilled workers. In general, the later applies to the people you love to defend so much.

In any case, they will always seek out the easy route – the asylum system. That is why they are getting fast tracked. You can harp on all you like about FGM, shariah law (only in northern nigeria), etc; I’m not going to accept those reasons for the many thousands of Nigerian nationals who have come here. Admittedly some are genuine, but you’re still talking about a small percentage. Although the trend internationally has dropped in recent years since its peak in 2002; the citizenship referendum has had the desired impact.

by SH Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:45

It is you who should educate themselves. You are now after embarassing yourself. We do not have a green card system, we have a work permit system. The government is currently discussing the introduction of a green card system for migrant workers who earn over €55,000 per annum, however it has not been passed into law and might not be. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about, yet you come onto this website and spout nonsense. Even a small bit of research would go a long way.

by Kevin Thu Oct 27, 2005 23:22

Kevin is my real name and the name I use with all my dealings on the net - end of story. Ever heard of an IP check, plenty of different software available for that.

Whatever your figure, the total number of genuine claimants is not exactly significant in the scheme of things.

At least I say my name, you don't. As for the green card system, you should really look at the news and educate youreself:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1027/labour.html

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2005/0212/3942119557HM1GREENCARD.html

by SH Thu Oct 27, 2005 19:58

That is the rate at the first instance. The acceptance rate is much higher at the appeal stage and more again are accepted after further legal action and indeed more are granted humanitarian leave to remain.The reality is that the asylum system is designed to kick as many people out as possible. FGM is not grounds for asylum, nor is other gender based discrimination. There are countless cases of people being deported who have valid cases.

As for this green card system please do explain I am fascinated by this. Perhaps you could explain our green card sysytem, considering we don't actually have one.

Kevin have you posted here before under countless different pseudonoms and indeed have you attacked this site at least twice before?

by ned flanders Thu Oct 27, 2005 19:45

Citizenship comes with rights (naturally). If you are an Irish citizen you have the right to work in Ireland, or else to be one of those people (God Bless 'em), who just don't feel like working.

Others should use the work permit system. You'll find most countries in the world operate similar schemes. Ireland has never had to give much serious thought to this in the past because few people wanted to come to an economic backwater.

by eeekkkkk Thu Oct 27, 2005 19:36

are they genuine?

by Kevin Thu Oct 27, 2005 19:35

I told you before SH, we have a green card system for people seeking work. If they are genuinely looking for work they should use this method. The asylum system has been abused for many years now, the recognition rate in Ireland for Nigerians is a mere 0.6%, the figure for Spain is a only 0.1%. It is not unique to Ireland. Being generous, you could say 1 in 10 might be genuine.

by SH Thu Oct 27, 2005 18:50

Thank you Kevin for responding to my post without addressing anything that I said. Your constant referral to people abusing the asylum system is absolute nonsense. Allow asylum seekers the right to work that will stop talk of abuses of the asylum system. The reality is that the asylum system abuses people not the other way around.

by Kevin Thu Oct 27, 2005 17:37

SH,

The people who come here to work from outside the EU are highly skilled individuals who come here on a visa / green card (whatever you want to term it).

Because they are highly skilled they can contribute to our economy.

If Nigerian nationals (or other non eu nationals) want to work here they should follow the correct procedures. Abusing the asylum system is not the way to go about this. People who abuse the system should be deported without hesitation.

by Fan Thu Oct 27, 2005 17:35

The Garda who appears to be co-ordinating the deportations in this footage is Sergeant John Stratford (No: C47) of Store Street. He was responsible for arresting and charging (Public Order offences) the IMC video journalist Wolfe Fishbourne on September 22nd 2001 during the ‘Car Free Day’ demo. He was subsequently and completely cleared of these charges later on.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=199

Later on that year (Burlington Hotel demo October 10th 2001) another IMC video journalist Rowan Dempsey was arrested and charged with two breaches of the Public order act and under section 9 of the firearms act. This time the arresting officer was Detective Sergeant Kevin Stratford, brother of Sergeant John Stratford! Once again the video journalist was cleared of all charges.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=5763

Sgt John Stratford is also the darling of the media. He has appeared numerous times on Prime Time specials about combating Dublin street crime and has also graced the pages (posing) of Sunday World articles. A very passionate Garda indeed!

by SH Thu Oct 27, 2005 17:25

The economic cost of housing would easily be offset by allowing asylum seekers to work. This is an argument that RAR have consistently made both on indymedia and other outlets. The government are quite happy to ban asylum seekers from working so that some people can call asylum seekers spongers rather than blame the government for their failed policies. As for the health system, blaming asylum seekers is pathetic. It is failing because of government policies. To blame asylum seekers is nothing less than racism, it is idiotic, naive and bordering on the delusional. What next blame the elderly? What about blaming asylum seekers for Irelands non qualification from the world cup?

by seedot Thu Oct 27, 2005 16:59

since afternoon telly is obviously the most accurate source of all information.

But what does this 7 times figure mean?

Cos I have a job I have to rely on the internet and the EU data rather than the font of all wisom that is the Big Bite - but according to these sources, France on it's own had 81,000 immigrants in 2002 (last year that my, admittedly poorer sources than afternoon telly, had). This gives over half a million immigrants in Ireland.

Of course the statement was that it was 7 times France and the Netherlands. Since the Netherlands had about 50k p.a. this gives us 850,000 immigrants in Ireland??

by Joe Thu Oct 27, 2005 16:58

Watched the video and well done all concerned.

Whether or not the Irish public has yet seen through the racist lies of the referendum period is untested. Certainly from some of the comment here it appears not. But public support for something never makes it right.

After all for decades the Irish public sat on its hands while priests raped children - we all knew about it. Anyone who raised that issue 20 years back was told to shut up or was ignored. If anyone had acted back then they'd have been criminalised but would have been lauded now. Someday people will wake up to the racist reality they have tolerated and even supported - some have already mostly when the cops come for their friend, neighboor or workmate.

There is no mystery as to the eun down state of the health service or lack of housing and its got almost nothing to do with the tiny percentage of asylum seekers here. If you want to look for a cause then consider that corporations here pay half the tax that they would elsehwere in Europe. Those tens of billions of pounds would pay for a decent healthservice for all.

by Kevin Thu Oct 27, 2005 16:33

Afternoon Posters,

I've just watched the video, the joys of broadband. To me, all it proves is that your organisation was involved in public order offences in an attempt to stop a lawful deportation. Emma, this was no death plane, give me a break!

The majority of the people in this Country support the government position on this important matter. Do you guys (Emma, SH etc) even care about the economic cost of housing these people? Do you even care about the cost to our already messed up health service? This notion of "no borders, no countries, no deportations simply will never happen in the way you would like.

by Stephen Donnelly Thu Oct 27, 2005 16:14 stephenrockz at aol dot com Ballinasloe, Galway 085 9835601

Ireland already has an open border policy. I was just watching the Big Byte Show on RTE one and did anyone know that Ireland will take in 7 times more immigrants this year than France or the Netherlands?

by Revolt Video Thu Oct 27, 2005 15:12 revoltvideo at hushmail dot com

https://video.indymedia.org/en/2005/10/187.shtml

Low quality wmv version to follow

by SH Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:31

No Johnny it was not a loophole. The referendum was a complete reversal of our citizenship laws. How many times do I have to say this on this thread. Why the hell can't people read. A loophole in the law is when an unforseen consequence happens. This is not the case with citizenship as the referendum completely reversed our citizenship laws that we had since the foundation of this state. It was NOT A LOOPHOLE.

by Johnny Harkin Wed Oct 26, 2005 22:19 johnny_harkin at indigo dot com rathmullan, Bagnealstown, County Carlow 087 9382295

For many of us, the good friday agreement was a not enough on the road to a united Ireland but it did for the first time allow the nationalists in the North to avail of an Irish passport. But speaking about this issue, there was a loophole that migrants were exploiting and that's why this issue was put to a referendum.

by Emma/RAR Tue Oct 25, 2005 14:50

Firstly as the above posted the results of the rte exit poll to highlight what I had raised, during last years referendum people would approach us on the street and ask if they vote yes what does it mean and also if they voted no, people were voting yes for the wrong reasons.

Residents Against Racism is NOT an anarchist organisation I was speaking in an individual capacity,
I am an anarchist and they were my views not the organisations as a whole.
Secondly the deportation last tuesday was not lawful, among those deported had wrong names on their deportation orders and others Judical Reviews pending and Irish born children were also on that death plane.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:33

PD has done the classic politician's shuffle with this discussion. She pretends she doesnt know what the real issue is here:

the legality of the deportations.

Quite simply, they were illegal in a lot of cases. The referendum has nothing whatsoever to do with it - that has been introduced to get us all off topic. Whatever the results of the referendum , we are still required to operate within the law - unless PD is promoting the idea that the sate is above the law? There are surely a lot of reasons to think this government believes itself to be above the law, but listening to PD we'd be wise to think hard about who we replace them with next time round.

Aside from that, people are fully entitled to seek to have bad law democratically overturned if they want to. Donnelly seems to believe that once somthing is on the statute book nobody is entitled to question it. That's facism, if Im not mistaken.

by SH Tue Oct 25, 2005 09:47

Citizenship by birth was the citizenship laws on this island since the birth of this state. The referendum completely reversed that. In 1998 the government were well aware of all possibilities arising from putting that guarantee in the constitution as it had been discussed. So it was not closing a loophole nor was it an attempt to deal with unforseen consequence, it was a complete reversal of citizenship laws.

As for the GFA signing part of the country away, that is for a different thread. I for one view it as a movement towards a united Ireland but we can start another thread about it.

by X it pole Mon Oct 24, 2005 20:03

Kevin:
'With respect, the referendum was not a racist event.'

Emma:
'Last years racist referendum people did not know what they were voting for'

Kevin, to illustrate Emma's point, check out this RTÉ screenshot from referendum day....

RTÉ Exit Poll

by Kevin Mon Oct 24, 2005 20:02

The Good Friday Agreement was actually about the Irish people declaring that part of Ireland - the North - did not belong to Ireland, but instead belonged to a foreign Country.

The Citizenship aspect was only a secondary item. It was meant to give citizenship to those in the North who wanted to declare themselves as Irish nationals.......a strange provision considering that the Irish people had voted away part of their Country. Incidentally, a unique event ... you would search hard to find any other race in the world who would say their own country belonged to someone else.

Anyhow the main point is that the provision of citizenship by birth in the country had a good intention but was sadly abused. The constitutional draftsmen who inked this provision had their eyes looking North. They never thought of casting a glance towards Nigeria. It was a mistake of Niagran proportions.

by SH Mon Oct 24, 2005 16:45

The citizenship referendum did not close a loophole, it completely reversed our citizenship laws. Citizenship by birth was the basis for acquiring citizenship since the foundation of this State. It was put into the constitution in 1998 as part of the Good Friday Agreement. A pretty strange thing to call a loophole would you not agree? Of course you can keep making up stuff there Kevin, you always do don't you?

by Kevin Mon Oct 24, 2005 15:57

Emma,

With respect, the referendum was not a racist event. The vast majority of the people in Ireland wanted to see an end to the blatant abuse of a loophole in our constitution. The people knew what they were voting for, be very aware of that. And if you (RAR) have not become an anarchist organisation - why then were you involved in disturbances during a lawful deportation.?

by Emma-RAR/WSM Mon Oct 24, 2005 15:27

Last years racist referendum people did not know what they were voting for, what that referendum done was take away the rights of children because of their parents skin colour. Michael McDowell's use of language during the referendum was disgusting. I was involved with CARR and the abuse on the streets was unreal.

As for RAR becoming an anarchist organisation-what RAR do is political but we have no set political agenda we are not affiliated to any political group or organisation and we are open and democratic and people can get as much involved in the organisation as they want to. I'll also add if we lived in an Anarchist society there would be no deportations and as an Anarchist I suggest you read up a bit more on Anarchism and what it advocates.

by SH Mon Oct 24, 2005 13:36

I asked you a question. That question was if the majority voted for genocide would you support the majority decision like you stated. I did not make comparisons I asked a question. You then went on to produce drivel about me wanting to control society. This is blatant fiction, you haven't produced one valid argument in this thread, not one. Instead what you have done is produce absolute nonsense. If you want to take part in a debate the least you could do is come up with some accurate arguments, or is it your intention to just waste people's time?.

by Paula Donnelly Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:58

Ok, so you really don't understand what I am stating at all... If you are childish enough to believe that this issue has anything to do with 'genocide' then do so. But don't try to inforce this view on ordinary minded people who simply give their own free and honest opinion. I get it. You wan't to control society.

by deedaw Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:49

paulas argument was divel really i can understand that SH got a bit irate about it. the whole thing has been explained in unbelievably clear terms and yet paula has chosen to construe this differently and overlook basic fact and the point of what was being dicussed here. which does display ignorance. and during this didn't actually add anything constructive to the discussion.

by SH Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:39

Paula I will explain this in the most simplest terms possible so that you will understand.

NOBODY and I repeat NOBODY is trying to overturn the referendum. Do you understand that?

Yet you continue to suggest that they are. This gives in to the suggestion that you are either stupid or simply ignorant

The referendum was about citizenship, that was all. Do you understand that?

And as for following the majority, another stupid argument. If the majority were to vote for mass genocide, would you support the majority vote? according to your postings you are merely a sheep willing to follow whatever deisons the majority votes for. However I have met more intelligent sheep.

by Paula Donnelly Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:37

SH,
We are not "anti-immigrant". That is an unfair remark to make about anybody. You seem to be making it out to be a black and white issue. We just stated that if people decide to reform their country's constitution on any issue, then they are entitled to put it to a referendum and once again, if the majority decide to do so, then I am happy with that.

by Paula Donnelly Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:23

SH,
I am not using this to back up my position at all.... I think you are mis-understanding my arguement. You seem to be trying to twist the facts to suit your own agenda. I most certainly am not.

I am quite simply saying that if a (majority) vote for a particular issue, then I am happy to go by the majority. That, everyone will agree with.

by SH Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:19

No minority is trying to overturn the referendum. That is a complete fabrication. As usual the anti immigrant nuts can't keep to the truth in their arguments.

by SH Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:16

The citizenship referendum was about citizenship Paula. Yet you are now using it to try and back up your position. If you can't stick to the facts in debating Paula than don't bother debating at all.

by Paula Donnelly - Fine Gael Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:27

Well, call it what you like but that's what the majority of people voted for lat year. 72% voted to ammend the loophole in our constitution so what is your opinion? Should that democratic principle be overridden by just a small minority of people? People are entitled to decide democratically and the old days of dictatorship are long gone. I am happy to go with whatever the majority decides. Obviously you're not..

by Miriam Cotton Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:19

Paula

Your argument is more than a little trite and also beside the point - and it doesnt really work as a fig leaf for the racism it's presumably intended to disguise. Whatever people voted for in the referendum last year, people who come to this country are as entitled to fair treatment and to respect for their human rights as you or I. That is international law and a legal obligation. Many of the people deported last week had not even completed the application process for asylum etc. That's completely wrong. Our international reputation as a country which is corrupt and as a persistent abuser of human rights is growing. You might like to go to the Transparency International website for Ireland. Ireland has slipped 9 places since the last time this organisation did its survey (about 4 years ago). How would FG rectify that - or are they planning to make the situation worse?

You may imagine you are adopting a populist position by using the referendum result but the facts on the ground dont support you. There is a groundswell of public feelting that Ireland has become a greedy, inward looking and complacent country in the way it's adminstrated by our politicians. Ordindary people are increasingly disgusted by this.

by SH Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:15

The referendum was about giving the dáil the right to legislate for citizenship laws. It wasn't for anything else Paula, and minorities are not trying to change the result of the referendum. Your accusations of RAR being an anarchist organisation is a rather childish and timid insult and your entire contribution lacks anything of substance.

by Paula Donnelly - Fine Gael Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:27 Dundalk, Louth 028 6427461

The 'Residents against racism' are becoming an anarchist organisation. Although I'm not a Fianna Fail backer, but I think that the government is only doing what the people asked them to do 1 year ago. This was put to a referendum last year and minorities cannot change what the majority vote for.

by SH Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:05

Why would Kevin call the term racist disgusting, as opposed to racism itself being disgusting? This blatant attempt to try and snub out reality is compounded by his attempts to further confuse the discussion. The Dublin convention has been used numerous times to deport people back to the first EU country that they claimed asylum in, yet the poster Kevin ignored this and produced two points which are completely invalid. A little knowledge would go a long way and perhaps it would be best if the usual racists would actually try and gain more knowledge rather than amuse us and expose themeselves for who they are.

by Chris Bond Mon Oct 24, 2005 00:28

yeah i meant per week, thank you for pointing that out.

by 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Mon Oct 24, 2005 00:01

1. If somebody's language and opinions are racist, it is one's duty to point this out or one becomes complicit.

2. Adopting multiple personalities to post opinions on internet forums is a practice known as 'sock puppetry' and it's fairly easy to spot, and you are particularly poor at hiding your tracks. Stop it.

by "casualbrowser" Sun Oct 23, 2005 23:51

These considerate citizens have been calling those above, bogus, a waste, illegal and lazy. Now that's (unjustifiably)harsh.

by Andy O'Brien - Labour Sun Oct 23, 2005 22:49 Limerick confidental

Caoimhe,
I think you need to tone down some of the harsh language towards those who simply express their free opinions on immigration should those opinions be any different to your opinion.

by Brian Sun Oct 23, 2005 22:42

per week I think you mean ?
I was getting jealous there.....lol

by Residents Against Racism Sun Oct 23, 2005 21:26 residentsagainstracism at eircom dot net c/o 12 Brunswick Place, Dublin 2 087 6662060 or 087 7974622

A protest will take place at the GNIB on Thursday 27 October. See event calendar for details.

by Chris Bond - UCD Anti racism, UCD Labour pers cap Sun Oct 23, 2005 20:11

Assylum seekers only get paid 19.10 euro per hour and are not allowed to work, they are also subjected to appauling conditions. The notion that we ''cant afford to house any more assylum seekers'' is evening herald exque scaremongering propaganda. The cost of giving these people decent benefits consistent with human dignity would bear insignificant compared to the cost of tax evasion by the super rich in this country. Irish people dispersed themselves for the last 150 years fleeing oppression and looking for a better standard of living. we of all people should know better. we should be offering a Cead mile failte to all those fleeing peresecution and to those who seek a better life.

by Kevin Sun Oct 23, 2005 19:41

Caoimhe,

Asylum seekers must make an application for asylum in the first safe country they reach. In most cases this country would not be Ireland, especially in the case of Nigerian nationals as we have no direct flights from there. You suggest our Minister is racist, I would say that it is very easy to abuse this disgusting term.

Every nation has a right to defend it's immigration system, Ireland is actually quite generous in that it entertains some of these cases. Under the 'Dublin II' agreement of September 2003 we are entitled to send asylum seekers back to the point of entry into the EU, we very rarely use this power.

by Caoimhe - Residents Against Racism (pers caps) Sun Oct 23, 2005 17:30

Firstly Peter, asylum seekers are NOT ILLEGAL. As Emma has already explained, under international humans rights laws, asylum seekers are allowed to apply for refugee status in other countries. I would educate yourself on issues before you start using the same racist terminology that the Independent newspaper does. No asylum seeker is illegal under any law.


Secondly Angela, ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE FORBIDDEN FROM WORKING BY IRISH LAW. Asylum seekers are constantly asking for the right to work. The system which refuses them this right was only brought in in 1999. Go ask McDowell to reverse it as it was the Irish government that made these laws. stop blaming the people who have fled persecution for the policies our governnment have brought in. Also what does "a plateful of migrants" actually mean?? Stop with the crap and go educate yourself. In 2004 there were a measly 4766 applicants for asylum in Ireland. From Jan to July 2005 there were 2541 applicants for asylum. They will hardly break the country economically! Try thinking in terms of humanity in future instead of your own First World Pocket.

Your arguments are bull. Go educate yourself and stop fueling the racism that McDowell encourages.

by Peter McVeigh - Labour Sun Oct 23, 2005 14:47 mcveigh.peter348 at hotmail dot com Dublin west

Whether or nor we like it, the deportation of illegal's is carried out in a bid to control the problem of illegal immigration. I am well aware of the sensitivity involved but the country can't afford to house any more migrants otherwise it would go bankrupt.

by Emma-RAR Fri Oct 21, 2005 23:40

To the previous posters first off I am in favour of an open border policy. Ireland has an obligation to allow people to apply for asylum we are suppose to adhere to the U.N convention onhuman rights but clearly we dont and Michael McDowell has said publicly that if he had a choice he would send people back as soon as they first arrived in Ireland.

Secondly you haven't educated yourself on the differance between an immigrant, asylum seeker and refugee an immigrant comes to Ireland or any other country to work or study
asylum seeker flees from their country from persecution and in Ireland asylum are forbidden to work and if they take up work they are according to the state commiting a criminal offence and will be arrested and their asylum application will be at risk( even though over 90% are turned down) asylum seekers live on E19 per week and are forced to live in poverty and an asylum seeker or a person who is granted leave to remain cannot avail of public housing until they are given full refugee status so no nobody even bloody Irish people are given free housing. A refugee is a person has been granted asylum in the state and have all the same rights and entitlements that Irish people do.
I doubt it's a lack of eduction just blatant ignorance and racism.

People like you are giving Michael McDowell a platform for his facist views.

by Angela O'Reilly - neutral of any!! Fri Oct 21, 2005 21:06 Mayo

Although deportations can in some circumstances be justified, there is a reason for them. I would encourage the anarchists who campaign against deportation to take a look at why Irish people do not wish to have a plateful of migrants on their doorstep. Millions of our tax is being spent every year on refugee centres and in countries like Italy, they spend up to a billion every year just to pay for migrants alone. All this is a waste of money. If the pro-immigration protesters wish to allow these people into Ireland, let them pay for all of the migrants expenses for at least 1 year and see what they think after that year. But why should any other tax payer like me be subjected to paying my taxes for this when we do not want to?

by Revolt Video Fri Oct 21, 2005 08:07 revoltvideo at hushmail dot com

Anyone who's face isn't blurred in the following have given permission.

If there is anyone else who was there and doesn't mind there face being visible then please contact me at the above address about the video.

by paddy savage - consistent life ethic(inc animals) Thu Oct 20, 2005 22:02 achorusline19 at hotmail dot com

Rosanna flynn made a great comment their,lets not forget,we once were looked at as filth during the famine years when people were forced to emigrate due to the nazi like british empire making peoples life hell in their home land.And then during the days of slavery in the states where black people were'nt considered persons under the constitution,which is what we call dehumanization,where you make out that no wrongdoing or injustice is taking place because'sure their not persons anyway''.Obviously rosanna disagrees with such nonsense,and let me remind everyone including rosanna that at one stage the native american wasnt considered persons under the constitution,and even women,yes,thats right!!The only people not considered persons under the constitution in america and elsewhere are the unborn nowadays,which rosanna would like to see happening in eire as well,even up to birth,where they deliver the child up to the neck pierce the skull,and suck out the brains with a knife edged vaccum(partial birth abortion),but hey,their not people,even though the unborn have heartbeats at 18 days!!This kind of inconsistency in ethics is bizarre and pathetic,and aquarians are suppose to value the truth above all else??lol.War,abortion,capital punishment,poverty,racism and animal exploitation all lead to death,and are all linked!!Fact!under an ethic of life.Id like to congratulate consistent people every where that have marched in support of wars and abortion rights,at least their consistent in being marchers for death,save your breaths,i'll say it for yous,''its every womans right to choose'',''my body my choice!!'',''some people deserve the death penalty depending on the circumnstances'',what a load of crap,wake up people!!Smell the fresh blood.
Single issue activists are deluded,join the revolution!!

queer,vegan,anti abortion anti war,anti death penalty,anti vivisection,anti racism,anti capitalism.Now thats what i call pro life.

love and light,homo paddy.

by Emma-RAR Thu Oct 20, 2005 19:26

46 were on the flight to Nigeria on Tuesday. The Nigerian government will not except over 50 people on one chartered flight. When people are handed over to the Nigerian government they are taken to jail and usually if they have money with them they have to bribe themselves out.
RAR have made contact with a couple of people since tuesday, I am not hundred per cent sure how people are doing at the moment.

All we can hope for is that people we know on the flight will ring us from Nigeria and we can then hopefully keep in regular contact.

There is the catholic mission that does be at lagos airport and they have helped people in the past but basically all people have to rely on is the kindness of strangers.

That's all I know for now.

by M Cotton Thu Oct 20, 2005 15:52

The link to the Agbonlahor campaign that I gave in an earlier comment isnt working. Here is another one:

http://www.greatjusticeaction.org/

There is an online peition there - signatures will be appreciated.

Do RAR or another group have any means of keeping in contact with the people referred to in the comment above. Can we find out how they are getting on and whether they are alright?

by eeekkkkkk Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:40

"Fourteen children were among a group of 39 people deported from the State in the early hours of yesterday morning. Five of the minors deported were born in Ireland, gardaí have confirmed.

The group of Nigerian nationals was flown from Dublin airport at 12.30am yesterday on a specially chartered flight to Lagos.

The group included 14 men and nine women.

There were seven Nigerian-born male minors on board and four female minors. Another five children on the flight were Irish-born.

They were accompanied by a travelling party of around 30 Garda escorts, most of whom were attached to the Garda National Immigration Bureau.

A number of medical staff were also on the charter flight.

The Irish party returned to Dublin yesterday at around 4pm."

Cowardly after the fact reporting from our newspaper of rekkord

by Revolt Video Thu Oct 20, 2005 01:01 revoltvideo at hushmail dot com

I blurred some peoples faces to be on the safe side as I didn't get around to asking everyones permission.

The above photos have no blurring is it because everyone photographed gave permission? I want to know this as I'm working on the video and I want to know if I should blur people in the video or not?

by "Freak" according to garda 384 Thu Oct 20, 2005 01:00

pics

by "Freak" according to garda 384 Thu Oct 20, 2005 00:50

"Freak" according to garda 384
NGIB protest pics

by "Freak" according to garda 384 Thu Oct 20, 2005 00:48

"Freak" according to garda 384

by "Freak" according to garda 384 Thu Oct 20, 2005 00:46

"Freak" according to garda 384
NGIB protest pics

by Revolt Video Thu Oct 20, 2005 00:36 revoltvideo at hushmail dot com

Should have some more photos soon. Also working on the video.

G.N.I.B. Main Entrance

G.N.I.B. Rear Entrance

Blockade

by Emma-RAR (per cap) Wed Oct 19, 2005 21:36

I was also at gnib from two o clock yesterday and it has to be one of the worse deportations I have witnessed so far if that is at all possible.

I managed to get inside the gnib where people have to report for deportation and from early people were called to hatch 13 and then taken upstairs not knowing what was going to happen to them, a few garda immigration cops saw over what was happening inside and were pretty rude to people wanting to know if they were going to be deported today- in response to questions asylum seekers were told they were just going up stairs for a chat and that would be it and not to worry, while I was in there I saw an elderly lady being taken upstairs and later saw a heavly pregnant woman looking distressed and I approached her to see what was wrong, she was looking for her mother who had been taking upstairs and when we were talking to the guard he told us she would be down in a few minutes about half an hour later she was being drove to Dublin airport and her daughter was frantic looking for a lawyer to try get an injunction since then I ave been talking to her daughter and her mother was on that flight to Nigeria. . I stayed inside until from what I could see no Nigerians were left and then went around the back of the gnib to were others were waiting to block the vans as they were going out to Dublin airport.

A scuffle broke out and people were pushed and Rosanna knocked to her feet, the cops seemed to take great pleasure in hurting people, a few protestors from what I can make out were hurt yesterday.

A while later I was arrested and charged at Pearse street garda station and I am due in court next week and dont want to say with what right now as I have been advised not to, while I was waiting to be booked in another person was arrested and charged also.
after three hours both of us were released and headed back around to the gnib were people were still outside, I was told Abolode was in the gnib and managed to get back in and I asked if she was there and if I could see her, the civil servant seemed quite pleasant enough and took Abolode details off me and went to see if she was there when she came back which was a few minutes later she said there was no record of Abolode there which was impossible I had been talking to her a few minutes earlier, so I went around the back and it turned out she had been taking out while the civil servant was checking to see if she was still there.

This has to stop, we have to organise a way of trying to stop these deportations, in my opinion there are not enough anti racism activists and very few are actually active, yesterdays turnout of people was promising though unlike last July's deportation were not many people were there at all and nobody could block the back or show a presence, hopefully people will realise the realities of what is happening to people.

p.s. d hope your back is ok

by d Wed Oct 19, 2005 19:56

yeah there was a bit of that, but twas more the elbow into the spine and the digs in the back. Neck and back are still pretty bad.

by M Cotton Wed Oct 19, 2005 18:04

Obviously the trauma of what happened yesterday is continuing for everyone involved bar Great and his family. But there is a message in what is happening where Great is concerned for Michael McDowell and the rest of the community.

McDowell is a man of mean convictions and begruding attitudes to society generally, certainly in this writer's view and a fair fiew others as well it seems. Well he should understand that his perspective is not one commonly shared by decent people around the country.

Here in Clonakilty people are aware that the story is not yet over for Great and a community-wide campaign has been got up. People of every political persuasion and none are signing up. In Scoil na mBuachailli, the primary school that Great attends, information leaflets are prominently displayed for parents and visitors encouraging them to support the Agbonlahors in their application to stay in Ireland. The leaflets have been circulated all over the town.

In the foyer of the Dunnes Stores supermarket on the Western end of the town a while ago I met Olive O Sullivan, Co Chair of the Great Justice campaign where she had been collecting hundreds of signatures all day long for a petition. There is huge support for the family. Olive also spoke on the County Sound David Young radio programme yesterday morning and although the phone-in responses afterwards included a few racist attitudes, most people were very supportive. In the girls secondary school yesterday, the issue was debated strenuously among third year pupils. It is a subject on everyone's lips all over town.

However, if there is another side to this it is that the Agbonlahor family story is not an exception. Unfortunately, judging from reports in the mainstream press today, it is also being used as a way of disguising the brutality of what happened to so many other people yesterday. The other deportees may not have as photogenic and appealing a set of circumstances with which to make a claim on our sense of justice. The depressed and traumatised men, women and children who were all deported yesterday are just as deserving. Every community in Ireland needs to be galvanised like Clonakilty - there is no doubt the compassion for fellow human beings exists in equal measure everywhere. At the risk of repeating myself (actually I AM repeating myself) we were a nation of emigrants ourselves not so long ago. Why are we treating these people so badly now?

Please add your signature to the online petition for the Agbonlahors at:

www.westcorkstudio.com

by Caoimhe Wed Oct 19, 2005 16:12

I am a member of Residents Against Racism (speaking in a personal capacity) and spent yesterday outside of the GNIB headquarters on Burgh Quay trying to block deportations from happening.

There were a number of incidents yesterday that need to be reported.

For the entire day (from just before 2 o clock in the afternoon until roughly 9 at night) people were present at both the front and back of the building to try to prevent people being brought out for deportation. Generally the way they bring people out of the building is out of the back entrance in a vehicle. The front entrance is a pedestrian entrance. There were people who were there to protest coming and leaving throughout the day. There was roughly up to 20 people there at any one time.

Early in the afternoon people linked up at the back entrance and prevented a garda carrier van from entering the building. This van was to be used for transporting people to the airport for deportation. There were minor scuffles with the guards at this stage. One protestor was being kneed in the back by the guards while being linked up.

The guards managed to get 3 people (not certain on this number) out of the front entrance and into cars to drive to the airport.

At one stage in the afternoon (sorry I cannot be more accurate on times, was there for over 7 hours) a woman named Meriam Shaka who was due for deportation was dragged out of the front entrance of the GNIB screaming by a male guard in plain clothes. She looked roughly 20. She was barefoot and barelegged having only a small skirt on the bottom half of her body. She ended up in the middle of the road with the male guard handling her extremely roughly. She was lying on the ground kicking and screaming. She was being dragged from the road to the footpath by this male guard. She seemed to go unconscious and her eyes were flickering. It was unclear as to whether she was gone unconscious or into sever shock or was having a seizure. More male guards came to the scene and were told by the plain-clothes guard that she was "only messing". People came running out of nearby buildings to come to her assistance. The guards refused to allow people to give her First Aid. The guards also at all times throughout this incident refused to give their names and numbers which is completely illegal. A female guard appeared at the scene and she seemed to be the only one who was interested in following any form of garda protocol. She requested that another female guard be brought to the scene so that they could lift the woman. The guards refused to bring her to the hospital and instead threw her into the back of a garda riot van onto the floor of it and brought her to Pearse Street Garda Station. One man who was an onlooker, who went over to the station to ask how she was and to complain about the abuse she had suffered at the guards hands was arrested at the station. Meriam was not deported last night.

Later the guards managed to get an unmarked Jeep that carries 6 passengers in the back in the back entrance of the GNIB.

There was a large presence of male and one female guards at the GNIB throughout the afternoon. When they decided that they had had enough of us and that they wanted to do the deportation a large number of them assembled at the back of the building and when we tried to link up and block the jeep that was carrying people in it to be brought to the airport they just went for us. They had us out of the way in seconds and were very heavy handed about it.

Later in the evening all of the guards left and only came back for literally a couple of minutes to prevent us from blocking the back entrance. We knew for a fact that there was a woman named Abolade Obabire and her baby Khaleed Obabire in the car as I was on the phone to her speaking to her until they put her in the car inside the building. There were a number of us (roulghly7-10) around the back and the rest were around the front. Approximately 15 male guards came running around the corner form Pearse Street Garda Station and threw us out of the way. They had moved us in a matter of seconds. They were extremely rough. Both myself and another woman were hit to the ground by a male guard. The other woman had cuts on her body due to the force he hit us with. I could not see clearly what was happening to the other protestors as I landed with my back to them. I only saw guards wrestling them. One man had about 3 guards all pushing him and wrestling him. The guards ran back off down the road as soon as the car with the woman and her child, plus another woman was out of sight.

Overall the guards were very heavy handed with the protestors. They were pushing people and giving people sly digs throughout the day. Two guards openly laughed about the way that Meriam had been treated. 3 people were arrested. One I have already mentioned. One for allegedly writing in biro “no deportations” on the side of a garda van and another for allegedly cursing at a guard.

Sorry that this is so long and patchy but in a hurry so hav not got time to edit it

by Con Carroll Wed Oct 19, 2005 15:41

Remember the poem from pastor Neimer
First they came for the Jew I didn,t speak out I was-not a Jew
the same poem could be adapted here
First they came for the Roma I didn,t speak out because I couldn't stand their look and culture.
Then they came for children with disabilities during the special olympics remember Mc Dowells comments in the scantuary of the Dail. that the deportation cops would have every right not to allow people with severe disabilities enter.
Then they came for women from eastern europe
I did not speak out because I was of higher morals
after all these are only good for sexual entetainment
and to be exploitated.
then they came for the africans and we voted yes in 2004. accusing them of coming to Ireland pregnant to abuse our heath system. making little of our hospitality.
then they came for me I wondered why no shouts of protest Speak Out Direct Action works

by r Wed Oct 19, 2005 15:20

any chance of pictures, more detailed report?
massive solidarity to all who talk part. well done.

by dunk Tue Oct 18, 2005 21:36 fuspey at yahoo dot co dot uk

http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/rar.wav

here is an audio file from the steps of the garda national immigration bureau, speaking with rosana flynn from residents against racism, she tells us of early afternoon scuffles which led to 3 arrests, a serious incident with a nigerian friend of rosannas who was dragged out onto the streets, her shoes came off, she went unconcious, she was dragged up to the local police station, despite requests from people that she be taken to hospital

we waited outside until the last van came out, there were heavy handed tactics used by the gardai and mainstream journalists took numbers and said they witnessed gardai assaults, the woman has left her children here, she was held inside the bureau from before 2pm till she was taken out at 8pm, without any food or water given to her. people were on the phone to her and she was in a very distressed state before being driven away

by eeekkkkk Tue Oct 18, 2005 19:59

just a fyi

by Stop the Deportation Tue Oct 18, 2005 19:57

The deportation order for this family has been temporarily stopped pending review of their case by Michael McDowell.

Little is publicly known about the circumstances of the other families, although it is a certainty that many if not all will have comparable reasons for being here. If you live in Dublin please support the blockade.

by eeeekkkkk Tue Oct 18, 2005 19:56

examiner / rte / irish times

lots reports about the exception mickey is using to show us his big heart

no mention that a mass deportation is upcoming

no reports of an unprecedented blockade at gnib

no reports of arrests at that blocade

just like every time in the recent past indymedia has covered one of these we are the only ones willing to mention these mass deportations before they happen

I'd say that equals the media outlets mentioned above acting in these cases as an arm of the state

I wonder if a word was had in their ears?

good on the arrestees

if you're (unlike meself) in dublin by a phone ring the newsdesks of various and ask why the lack of coverage. make sure they at least know someone notices the sin of omission.

God speed to those who chose to disappear in ireland today.

No doubt there were women and children amongst those who did.