Public forum: for Migrants rights, regularisation not deportations

by Peter Cosgrave Fri May 13, 2005 08:37

"not to mention the same refusal to prop up your wild assertions with anything as vulgar as facts."

Answer: You haven't produced one fact. I clearly exposed your lies. You don't have a point of view, what you have are lies and racism.

Check behind you, Mark Grehan could be there.

by Peter Cosgrave Fri May 13, 2005 08:32

Now your not even trying to make any points. Your lies have been exposed and now you are trying to completely derail the thread. Not only is it not true but it is completely irrelevant. You seem to have Mark Grehan in your head. Do you see him everywhere you go? How many times have you accused posters of being him? are you secretly in love with him? how obsessed with him are you?

by Pseudo-Nom VIIII Fri May 13, 2005 00:33

The funny thing is that I don't even have to link to all your other posts,

Your response here alone reveals all:

Once again:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69500&media_type=TEXT#comment105597


"if they are genuine they have nothing to fear". Thank you simon for that uninformed nonsense. It shows that you know nothing at all about the asylum system in Ireland. If "genuine asylum seekers have nothing to fear" could you please explain why the people who were recently deported are in hiding in Nigeria fearing death if they are caught. Then you could explain how the hunger strikers received death threats yesterday saying that "when you are deported to Nigeria we will kill you" or indeed why many of the hunger strikers say that they would rather die then go back to Nigeria. Perhaps then you could explain the case of a Somalian women who contacted us a few days ago, who has recently been served with a deportation order, or do you view Somalia as a safe country?. I could go on through the thousands of other cases but i wont waste my time until you inform yourself better.



Note the same attitude, sweeping statements, condensed prose, non capitalised "i"s, poor grammar, general abuse and tasteless condescension - not to mention the same refusal to prop up your wild assertions with anything as vulgar as facts.

I couldn't care less if you troll Mark.

All I ask is that you have the basic human decency not to accuse others of doing so and lay off the wholly inappropriate abuse and vitriolic responses - to others - for the sin of making a point and not sharing your POV.

by Peter Cosgrave Thu May 12, 2005 23:52

"So the Minister came to the rescue after an indendent review came to the conclusion that they were not refugees. My point remains - the Minister does not deport refugees now, in the past or in the future. Yours appears to be that this should be the norm and not the exception."

Answer: Your point doesn't remain. The cases were won by public support. In many of these cases it was still the ministers intention to deport them. Your point neither stands, nor does any point you made on this thread.


"As to the rest of your bizzare post. You accuse me of conspiracy theories, yet launch into a completely wild accusation implicating me in a "worldwide jewish conspiracy".
Dear God, do you ever read your own posts?"

Answer: That is not what i said. Perhaps you should start reading my posts before completely making a fool of yourself.

"In my last post I quoted you as saying from another thread: "I could go on through the thousands of other cases but i wont waste my time until you inform yourself better."
In your last post - depite reading this, you post: There are hundreds possibly thousands of cases like this.If you are going to troll and make a virtue of exposing other "trolls", at least be subtle."

Answer: You now really are making yourself look completely insane. What next? Maybe you'll find similarities between what i wrote and the Pope, it doesn't mean i'm the bloody Pope. What next, a secret code in my posts predicting the future..

"I note you have declined my offer to reveal more similarities between your posts and "Peter Cosgraves"."

Answer: My name is posted on all my posts. It's (shock horror) Peter Cosgrave. My posts are of course more than similar, because (shock horror) they are mine.

Interesting new tactic, your lies have been exposed so what your going to do now is look for codes. I dealt with your lies. Bye bye.

by Pseudo-Nom VIII Thu May 12, 2005 23:36

You state:

Answer: Wrong they were recommended for deportation and the minister either didn't decide to deport them, or he decided to deport them only to change his mind after public campaigns.

So the Minister came to the rescue after an indendent review came to the conclusion that they were not refugees. My point remains - the Minister does not deport refugees now, in the past or in the future. Yours appears to be that this should be the norm and not the exception.

As I have stated before. There is NO POINT in adjudicating on claims and pouring public money down the drain if the result is routinely ignored.

As to the rest of your bizzare post. You accuse me of conspiracy theories, yet launch into a completely wild accusation implicating me in a "worldwide jewish conspiracy".

Dear God, do you ever read your own posts?

In my last post I quoted you as saying from another thread: "I could go on through the thousands of other cases but i wont waste my time until you inform yourself better."

In your last post - depite reading this, you post: There are hundreds possibly thousands of cases like this.

If you are going to troll and make a virtue of exposing other "trolls", at least be subtle.

I note you have declined my offer to reveal more similarities between your posts and "Peter Cosgraves".

by Peter Cosgrave Thu May 12, 2005 23:10

"Is it your assertion that "Elizabeth Onosanwya, Elizabeth Salako, Grace etc, etc, etc." were recommended, to be granted refugee status but the Minister decided that they shoould be deported. Yes or no."

Answer: Wrong they were recommended for deportation and the minister either didn't decide to deport them, or he decided to deport them only to change his mind after public campaigns. There are hundreds possibly thousands of cases like this.


"No surprise to me. I was surprised that 80% of people let their feelings be publicly known when people like yourself are overcome with vilest abuse and screaming racism at anyone who disagrees or questions their logic."

Answer: As i stated Sinn Fein, Labour, the Green party and many other indepndent TD's don't support an open border. I have never accused them of racism. Not wanting an open border is not racist. I have never heard accusations of racism against those parties. If i was you i wouldn't talk about logic as you have none. What you have is racist bigotry which completely perverts your thought process.

As for the rest of your post. It is both irrelevant to this thread and a complete lie. But then again all you publish is lies. But keep looking for conspiracies, people like you believe in a worldwide jewish conspiracy, so it is not surprising if you believe in an irrelevant conspiracy on indymedia.

by Pseudo-Nom VII Thu May 12, 2005 22:35

Its odd that you make my arguments for me again and again.

Is it your assertion that "Elizabeth Onosanwya, Elizabeth Salako, Grace etc, etc, etc." were recommended, to be granted refugee status but the Minister decided that they shoould be deported.

Yes or no.

(what was surprising about the poll was that those who supported an open border was so high.)

No surprise to me. I was surprised that 80% of people let their feelings be publicly known when people like yourself are overcome with vilest abuse and screaming racism at anyone who disagrees or questions their logic.

(Answer: I am quite sure that most people believe you need to be better informed. )

Well if you must revisit this point then I will quote you from above first:

(First of all don't call me Marko. My name is posted above. I care not for the many arguments you have had with most of the other posters on this site. It is becoming patently obvious you are nothing more than a racist troll.)

Compelling.

Your title to the post is of course: (Answering racist troll)

Now this phrase "be better informed" is not just apalling grammer, but sounds remarkably like this poster:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69500&media_type=TEXT#comment105597

A Mr. Mark Grehan states: "I could go on through the thousands of other cases but i wont waste my time until you inform yourself better."

Wild assertions, assumptions of stupidity and of course that whacky "inform yourself better" line.

Want more examples?

To "inform yourself better"?

by Peter Cosgrave Thu May 12, 2005 22:09

You are simply unbelievable. Not only do you not have a clue, when it is put in front of you, you ignore it.

To deal with your post.

"13.—(1) Where the Commissioner carries out an investigation under section 11, he or she shall, subject to section 12, as soon as may be, prepare a report in writing of the results of the investigation and such a report shall set out the findings of the Commissioner together with his or her recommendation whether the applicant concerned should or, as the case may be, should not be declared to be a refugee, and shall furnish the report to the Minister.
So as I have stated on numerous occasions to yourself, the Minister does not make the base DECISION on the legitimacy of asylum cases. He is merely empowered to authorise the appropriate decision making process and act on that decision. He is not COMPELLED to, but I know of no case where he did not. Perhaps you will inform me otherwise?"

Answer: It is a recommendation, not a decision. It was put plainly in front of you and you have ignored it. It is up to the minister and the minister alone to make the decision. As for him not supporting the recommendation their are countless cases. Juliet the prominent FGM campaigner is one. Elizabeth Onosanwya, Elizabeth Salako, Grace etc, etc, etc. These are only a few of the cases where the RECOMMENDATION was not carried out. And the reason why the RECOMMENDATION was not carried out is because the decision rests with the minister. It is all laid out in the refugee act, which you have ignored.

"The Tribune poll found 80% of people wanted controls on immigration. Read it again."

Answer: Supporting controls on immigration, merely means not wanting an open border. Sinn Fein, Labour, and the Greens don't support an open border. Open border supporters tend to come form the extreme left wing, what was surprising about the poll was that those who supported an open border was so high.



"You know, this "inform me better" line (whatever that means) reminds me of another poster. Not you of course, "Peter"."

Answer: I am quite sure that most people believe you need to be better informed. You are quite clearly not a particularly intelligent person. I'm not surprised that other users of this site have said it to you before, and i'm positive i wont be the last one to say it. I also have no doubt that many people who have not used this site have told you the same also.

"Moving on - from your very own link - Refoulement:
5.—(1) A person shall not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where, in the opinion of the Minister, the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person's freedom shall be regarded as being threatened if, inter alia, in the opinion of the Minister, the person is likely to be subject to a serious assault (including a serious assault of a sexual nature).

As you can see - the Minister is disbarred from deporting someone in these circumstances and as we have established, the Commisioner (not the Minister) decides if that is the case."

Answer: Not only did you ignore the info that was put before you, but you published the section here that backs up what i said. "in the opinion of the minister" is stated twice there. So not only is the Minister not disbarred from not doing it, he can do it whenever he wishes. Now you are publishing info here which completely contradicts what you say. And as for the commissioner deciding the case. I have already proved that that is not the case.

"All there - in black and white."

Answer: Yes it is but you have strangely ignored it. But please continue publishing info which completely contradicts you and exposes your lies. It amuses me greatly.

"Don't post a link if you cannot be bothered read it first or at least point to the relevant section or text you don't understand."

Answer: to repeat, the info contradicting you and backing me up has been published here by you.

"Whilst it is amusing to imagine you foaming at the mouth, I feel I must repeat, if only for your own mental health, if you can reply without being overly hysterical and abusive, it would be nice"

Answer: Yawn, yawn, yawn. It is clearly obvious to everyone on this site that you have a perverted imagination so you should try and sort out your mental health. And as for being nice, i don't believe in treating racists nice. Join the ICP the couple of people involved will no doubt treat you nice.

by Pseudo-Nom VI Thu May 12, 2005 19:23

Now, if you look into your own link you find this:

13.—(1) Where the Commissioner carries out an investigation under section 11, he or she shall, subject to section 12, as soon as may be, prepare a report in writing of the results of the investigation and such a report shall set out the findings of the Commissioner together with his or her recommendation whether the applicant concerned should or, as the case may be, should not be declared to be a refugee, and shall furnish the report to the Minister.

So as I have stated on numerous occasions to yourself, the Minister does not make the base DECISION on the legitimacy of asylum cases. He is merely empowered to authorise the appropriate decision making process and act on that decision. He is not COMPELLED to, but I know of no case where he did not. Perhaps you will inform me otherwise?

The Tribune poll found 80% of people wanted controls on immigration. Read it again.

On refoulement:

(Answer: Of course not. A quick scan of the Refugee act 1996 will inform you better. Again it is the opinion of the minister that matters)

You know, this "inform me better" line (whatever that means) reminds me of another poster. Not you of course, "Peter".

Moving on - from your very own link - Refoulement:

5.—(1) A person shall not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where, in the opinion of the Minister, the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person's freedom shall be regarded as being threatened if, inter alia, in the opinion of the Minister, the person is likely to be subject to a serious assault (including a serious assault of a sexual nature).

As you can see - the Minister is disbarred from deporting someone in these circumstances and as we have established, the Commisioner (not the Minister) decides if that is the case.

All there - in black and white.

Don't post a link if you cannot be bothered read it first or at least point to the relevant section or text you don't understand.

Whilst it is amusing to imagine you foaming at the mouth, I feel I must repeat, if only for your own mental health, if you can reply without being overly hysterical and abusive, it would be nice.

by chekov - Indymedia Ireland Thu May 12, 2005 12:43

"Is it over compensation for a lack of basic knowledge, poor education or just bad manners?"

No, it is simple deduction.

Q. Why would an individual spend so much time propagating false 'facts' about asylum seekers that are simply pulled out of his arse, under a constantly changing fake identity and when these myths are refuted, ignore the evidence and simply change tack to attack asylum seekers on another front?
A. Because the individual is a nasty, dishonest and cowardly racist.

by Peter Cosgrave Thu May 12, 2005 12:29

"It is extraordinary that you cannot point to one link that shows that the Minister determines asylum claims and not the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner which operates under the guidance and training of the UNHCR."

Answer: Applications for asylum are made to the Minister for Justice. They are then processed by the Refugge Applications commissioner. If rejected they can be appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Their determinations are then passed on to the Minister for Justice for final decision within the terms of the Refugee act 1996
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA17Y1996.html
So as is stated it is up to the minister for the decision as i stated repeatedly, and which you denied again and again and again. Once again you have refused to produce links to where you get your false info from. What are you hiding?

"If I may quote you: - (Migrant workers are part of the immigration system, as are asylum seekers, refugees and programme refugees".) It appears that you still cannot distinguish between the categories and you casually ignore illegal immigrants as if they do not exist. If you are going to debate the issue, at least demonstrate some rudimentary knowledge."

Answer: They are the categories. Fact. As for your constant refering to illegal immigrants, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn. You neither know the categories, the legislation or the practice behind the categories.

"You quote polls about what people think about asylum seekers working but ignore those same polls that show overwhelming support for tackling the issue of illegal immigration, vis a vis abuse of the asylum system!"

Answer: Again you produce no evidence or links to one of your points. I have never seen any poll like this and i would quite like to see it. What i did see was the Sunday Tribunes poll last sunday week in which 66% of those polled supported an amnesty for asylum applicants.


"Lets get another myth out of the way. No injunction against a deportation order has ever challenged the basic premise that the individual is not a refugee."

Answer: What myth. I have never heard that stated anywhere before. I didn't state it here, and i have never seen it wrote anywhere on this site. The myths that i have seen have come from you.



"Did our research bypass the concept of non-refoulement?"

Answer: Of course not. A quick scan of the Refugee act 1996 will inform you better. Again it is the opinion of the minister that matters


"Is it over compensation for a lack of basic knowledge, poor education or just bad manners?"

Answer: Repeatedly on this site you have lied through your teeth. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. You make false statements without backing them up with any evidence or links. You have no basic knowledge of the immigration process. You show a lack of education, an inability to accept the truth and thinly veiled racism. I believe in calling a spade a spade and a racist a racist.

by Shella Wed May 11, 2005 23:23

It is extraordinary that you cannot point to one link that shows that the Minister determines asylum claims and not the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner which operates under the guidance and training of the UNHCR.

If I may quote you: - (Migrant workers are part of the immigration system, as are asylum seekers, refugees and programme refugees".)

It appears that you still cannot distinguish between the categories and you casually ignore illegal immigrants as if they do not exist. If you are going to debate the issue, at least demonstrate some rudimentary knowledge.


You quote polls about what people think about asylum seekers working but ignore those same polls that show overwhelming support for tackling the issue of illegal immigration, vis a vis abuse of the asylum system!


Lets get another myth out of the way. No injunction against a deportation order has ever challenged the basic premise that the individual is not a refugee.


(I am certainly not confused. I have done a lot of research in this area. I know the remits of the UNHCR ,unlike you. I know the legislation in this country regarding immigration)

Did our research bypass the concept of non-refoulement?

(, unlike you. I am not a racist, unlike you.)

I don't recall calling you a racist. What say we leave the abuse and hysterics to your posts.

Is it over compensation for a lack of basic knowledge, poor education or just bad manners?

by Peter Cosgrave Wed May 11, 2005 22:42

First of all don't call me Marko. My name is posted above. I care not for the many arguments you have had with most of the other posters on this site. It is becoming patently obvious you are nothing more than a racist troll. You make claims with no evidence which are blatantly false. You consitently refuse to produce any evidence or any information. Instead you merely make irrational comments.

As for your last post:

"I think if you do some basic research you will find that it is the UNHCR that trains and instructs staff in this country in the determination of refugee claims. It is they and not the Minister that determines who qualifies for asylum. I am open to correction if you can provide the relevant information."

Answer: No you are wrong. You can get the info from any NGO or indeed from the department themselves. All you have to do is look at the relevant legislation, on the web, It is all there, your continued refusal to do so can only be answered by your refusal to not let the truth get in the way of your racism.

"I did say that there are legal avenues to apply to work in this country. I did not say they were perfect but that is not the issue."

Answer: Of course it is. It was you who brought up the "legal avenues". I was merely pointing out the slavery of the current system. Migrant workers are part of the immigration system, as are asylum seekers, refugees and programme refugees.

"If I may quote you - you state (about asylum seekers) - "They want to work and make a contribution to this country etc."Factually incorrect. Genuine asylum seekers are fleeing for their lives. They are seeking asylum from persecution. People who apply for this protection are called asylum seekers. Asylum seekers who qualify for protection are called refugees. We do not deport asylum seekers or refugees."

Answer: Wow , shock horror, once again wrong. It is completely factually correct. One of the biggest complaints asylum seekers have is not being allowed to work. Overwhelmingly in the polls it is shown that the public support this aswell. Also you are wrong this country has deported asylum seekers, their have even been people with injunctions against deportations who have been removed from the state only to be brought back in. As for your "genuine asylum seekers" nonsense, that term has no basis in law.

"I think you are confusing econmic migrants with asylum seekers and refugees. A little research into the less than subtle difference would go a long way."

Answer: I am certainly not confused. I have done a lot of research in this area. I know the remits of the UNHCR ,unlike you. I know the legislation in this country regarding immigration, unlike you. I am not a racist, unlike you.


Now you have consistently made false assertions on this thread. It is time you start producing evidence to back up your claims. Your posts are full of lies, nonsense, and ill researched claims. From now on produce evidence as i tire of your idiocy.

by Darren Brown Wed May 11, 2005 21:51

I think if you do some basic research you will find that it is the UNHCR that trains and instructs staff in this country in the determination of refugee claims. It is they and not the Minister that determines who qualifies for asylum.

I am open to correction if you can provide the relevant information.

I did say that there are legal avenues to apply to work in this country. I did not say they were perfect but that is not the issue.

If I may quote you - you state (about asylum seekers) - "They want to work and make a contribution to this country etc."

Factually incorrect. Genuine asylum seekers are fleeing for their lives. They are seeking asylum from persecution. People who apply for this protection are called asylum seekers. Asylum seekers who qualify for protection are called refugees. We do not deport asylum seekers or refugees.

I think you are confusing econmic migrants with asylum seekers and refugees. A little research into the less than subtle difference would go a long way.

Whilst it is amusing, I repeat, if you can reply without being overly hysterical and abusive, it would really be a nice little bonus.......

by Peter Cosgrave Wed May 11, 2005 19:31

"The UNHCR is not an employment agency. Refugee status is not awarded to people who are unemployed. Not now, not in the past and not in the future."

Answer: Your knowledge of UNHCR and what it does is idiotic at best. The UNHCR does not deal with each specific asylum case. Each asylum case in this country is at the discretion of the Minister for Justice. This has been pointed out to you several times but you continue to ignore it. Attempts to try and say that it is the UNHCR and not McDowell who decides the asylum cases is disturbing at best. But i will put it down to lack of knowledge.

"There are legal avenues to apply to work in this country."

Answer: Bonded slavery is the term used to describe the work permit system in this country, but then again you probably believe in slavery. Recent high profile cases such as the GAMA workers and others, have highlighted the abuses that employers perpetrate on migrant workers.

"As to your jaded line of €19 a week. How much this this lot cost? 350 Million a year until recently I believe".

Answer: Asylum seekers are denied the right to work. All asylum seekers should be allowed to work. They want to work and make a contribution to this country. By denying them the right to work it allows racists like you to call them spongers. It suits the government to have racists like you blame asylum seekers for government failures. The vast majority of the public support the right to work for asylum seekers. The Irish economy depends on immigrants as it did on emigrants in the past.

"I revert to my assertion ""They can say what they want but they have still not been persecuted in the manner they claimed they would."

Answer: Again why don't you inform us of the manner in which they said they would be persecuted. You consistently haven't a clue what you are talking about, yet repeat the same lies again and again. They are in hiding at the moment for their safety yet it seems you want them hurt.

Once again you have consistently ignored the facts in order to appease your racism. Next time you respond do so with facts and not idiotic nonsense.

by So-crates Wed May 11, 2005 19:09

Peter,

Let me condense.

The UNHCR is not an employment agency. Refugee status is not awarded to people who are unemployed. Not now, not in the past and not in the future.

There are legal avenues to apply to work in this country.

As to your jaded line of €19 a week. How much this this lot cost?

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/seeking_asylum/direct_provision.html

350 Million a year until recently I believe.

I revert to my assertion ""They can say what they want but they have still not been persecuted in the manner they claimed they would."

I suppose if they claimed unemployment than I am wrong. It they claimed they would be executed, stoned or tortured, then I am right.

If you can reply without being hysterical or abusive, it would be a nice bonus.......

by Peter Cosgrave Wed May 11, 2005 13:03

"(Many of those deported are now in hiding in Nigeria. This was published in several papers)
What proof?"

Answer: Church groups and NGO's working in Nigeria have backed up these claims.

"They can say what they want but they have still not been persecuted in the manner they claimed they would."

Answer: And what manner did they say they were going to be persecuted. Your problem is you haven't a clue what you are talking about. What do you want them to do, come out of hiding, and possibly be killed, just to show you that they are being persecuted. That's not a rational argument. It is an argument by a bigot who refuses to allow the truth get in the way of their racism.

"In other words they have found sanctuary"

Answer: nonsense, a ridiculous statement from someone who hasn't a clue

"Do you recall the case of Femmi some years ago, deported before his "wedding"?
the Indo followed him to Lagos and were devestated to fing him driving a mercedes around Lagos and living in comfort."

Answer: Let me get this straight, your argument now is that Nigerian asylum seekers all have mercedes in Nigeria and live comfortably. However they come to Ireland to be met by racists such as yourself and a racist state. Not only that they have no permission to work and are given €19.10 a week and invariably crammed into a hostel room with usualy around five other asylum seekers. And, to repeat myself,you are saying they do this while having mercedes and comfortable lives back in Nigeria. What a ridiculous statement. What are you going to say next "if anymore immigrants come people will be falling off the island". Clear nonsense, not true, not intelligent.


"Then the Irish Times about two years ago had a journalist follow deported Romanians home on their flight and published the story in the Saturday paper.Not one claimed to be a refugee. All were stopped by police and fined for entering another Country illegally before continuing on their merry way.Some admitted they would be returning to Ireland for work in the near future."

Answer: You see, economic persecution is still a form of persecution. Many Irish fled economic persecution from this country. Emigration was the only thing that kept the Irish economy going, it would have completely collapsed oterwise. These days it is immigration that is keeping this country going. Without immigration our economy would collapse. That is the argument that you racists absolutely detest. You can't stand the thought of your pension depending on the taxes that immigrants pay. Also post these articles to back up your claims.

"So provide a bona fide story of persecution to go on or accept the truth staring you in the face."

Answer: The truth that is staring me in the face is that you are a racist. Your arguments have neither analysis or intelligence and are merely fueled by your bigotry. Your constant changing of names and refusal to answer any questions merely reinforces the perception of your deviancy. Also your point blank refusal to accept all the evidence that has been place before you on this website show how obsessed and unflinching you are in your irrational racism.

by Byron Tue May 10, 2005 20:14

(Many of those deported are now in hiding in Nigeria. This was published in several papers)

What proof?

They can say what they want but they have still not been persecuted in the manner they claimed they would.

In other words they have found sanctuary.

Do you recall the case of Femmi some years ago, deported before his "wedding"?

the Indo followed him to Lagos and were devestated to fing him driving a mercedes around Lagos and living in comfort.

Then the Irish Times about two years ago had a journalist follow deported Romanians home on their flight and published the story in the Saturday paper.

Not one claimed to be a refugee. All were stopped by police and fined for entering another Country illegally before continuing on their merry way.

Some admitted they would be returning to Ireland for work in the near future.

So provide a bona fide story of persecution to go on or accept the truth staring you in the face.

by Peter Cosgrave Tue May 10, 2005 10:50

Blean,

Sean,

NTR,

Tony,

Your writing style is a dead give away.

Also the fact that you never know what your talking about.

Also the fact that you never listen to the truth as it gets in the way of your perverted beliefs.

Those deported to Nigeria only get out of jail if they or someone on their behalf bribe their way out.

Many of those deported are now in hiding in Nigeria. This was published in several papers, but don't let the truth get in the way of your arguments.

Perhaps it is time you explain to us all why you change your name so much these days.

Perhaps you could tell us why you are so obsessed with publishing your bigotry on this site that you constantly change your name after you are no longer allowed use your old one.

by Blean Mon May 09, 2005 20:45

Badman,

Kunle was detained and released.

When someone has to be flown back to their home Country on a charter plane loaded with foreign police officers, they can expect a few questions on arrival.

If he had left voluntarily, no such activity would be required. As stated, he suffered no persecution that he claimed he would.

No-one else on the flight has to my knowledge suffered torture or murder and our good friends at RAR claim contact with them (and others) according to their website.

Your hypothesis about the jews quickly breaks down as it wrongly assumes that they would not qualify for refugee status in a contemporary setting where they can claim asylum from a genocide.

Worse, it ignores the fact that this very persecution was the raison d'etre for such protection.

Apples oranges etc.

by Badman Mon May 09, 2005 19:17

Why on earth is the onus on me to prove my case?

As I said, in the one case where anybody bothered to investigate the fate of a deportee, he was definitely incarcerated on arrival in Lagos. Do you have a single counter example?

The answer to your last question is the same as the answer to the similarly stupid question that children ask about the holocaust "but why didn't they leave Germany before the Nazis got them?" That's to say that anybody with a bit of common sense knows that this line of argument is silly for lots of reasons and is only made by grown ups when they have an ulterior motive (it's not too difficult to guess yours)

by Badman Mon May 09, 2005 11:35

The recent deportation of Kunle (sp?) ended up with the Gardai handing him over to the Lagos police and releasing him after it became a scandal. This also happens to be the one and only case where anybody bothered to look. That's a 100% record. Can you point out a single case where the claimed persecution did not happen?

by South Belfast Voter Mon May 09, 2005 11:27

Someone who had actually been tortured and murdered wouldn't be around to tell his or her story, would they?

by Blean Sun May 08, 2005 21:51

Good point.

You might now illustrate it by pointing out ANY one specific case where a failed asylum seeker met the fate he/she claimed he/she would, following forced expulsion from Ireland.

Not too difficult for you I hope.

by South Belfast Voter Sun May 08, 2005 20:34

A 'failed asylum seeker' is not automatically someone who is no longer in need of asylum.

I haven't seen any evidence of transparency in the asylum processing system that would persuade me that cases are judged on their real merits and with the intention of not returning people to places where they are likely to be imprisoned, tortured, killed or a combination thereof.

What I have seen is a corrupt and venal and worthless Irish political and media establishment make a pig's ear of the asylum issue and the asylum system in order to placate smug little racist bigots.

Until there is some good reason to believe that people who flee persecution and threat can expect to be treated fairly in Ireland, I'm not going to believe that someone deported from Ireland is automatically a 'failed asylum seeker'.

And even if they were. . . the establishment deports them to satisfy the racism of large sections of Irish society so I'd oppose those deportations anyway.

by Blean Thu May 05, 2005 22:20

(The powers that be dont give a crap about who is out on the street or how many signatures have been collected thats something people are aware of if they have been involved in anti racism work.)

Careful Emma,

That sounds entirely logical and plausible......

by Emma (rar) per cap Thu May 05, 2005 22:01

This arguement could go on and on.
My impression would be Its the general consensus in RAR that we do not want to be affiliated to the civil rights movement, although I believe we should be collecting petitions for people facing deportation I think its pretty demoralising when you know they are just going in someones bin in the department of justice, and its important its done in the persons community not by a bunch of people standing in grafton street looking for signatures it doesnt work to stop deportations practical work needs to be done not street demos or gathering signatures although useful for public awareness, who is going to go to the GNIB with someone get a solicitor etc? that is one role RAR play and its vital because then you have some sort of awareness of whats going on. RAR work on a street/grassroots level you could say . If people are being realistic there are very few anti racism activists active and its a pain when people may not be sincere in their efforts to prevent state racism and deportations. The powers that be dont give a crap about who is out on the street or how many signatures have been collected thats something people are aware of if they have been involved in anti racism work.

by Blean Thu May 05, 2005 18:44

(they were written up by local underage asylum seekers who are being threatened with deporation )

emm, Ireland does not deport "asylum seekers". Ireland deports failed asylum seekers ie people who are not in need of asylum. Illegal immigrants if you like.

Is that clear enough Dave?

You may have more in common with RAR than this thread initially suggested.

Perhaps you should kiss and make up.

Ta Ta.

by Dave - swp Thu May 05, 2005 18:21

Well I'm glad you got all that off your chest, you poor guy, whoever you are.
As for the petitions, they were written up by local underage asylum seekers who are being threatened with deporation and they asked us to help out. When we fill a few we'll give them back to the lads who wrote them. They'll be bringing more along on Saturday night and I can e-mail them to anyone who wants them.
Should have got a report up earlier but was away for the bank holiday like a lot of others. Put it up now as its relevant to the thread.
Take it easy now. Bye Bye.

by Blean Thu May 05, 2005 18:15

(Reading the rants of "anti racism" "groups", slug it out over who is the greatest is surprisingly revealing)

by O.B. - exSWP Brigade! Thu May 05, 2005 16:19

You SwaPBots just dont get it do you?

RAR has been campaigning for a number of years with asylum seekers with absolutely no assistance from your party. In fact Hostility would be the best way to describe your attitude. Your parties lies about Rossanna could have been lifted straight from scumfront. They have worked very hard in building a credible anti-racist group supporting the rights of asylum seekers and migrant workers. They have the support of all right minded people and all campaigning groups on the ground, in their work.
IF you really want to assist them you should be assisting their work.
But no you are 'building' an 'anti-racist network' of your very own (Ring any Nordy Bells). Dont you realise that most people want to have nothing to do with your joke of a democratic party dictated to from London. You are a block in building any campaign. Your tactics are so obvious the dogs in the streets know what you are up to.
What the F**k are you doing with all these petitions you are collecting?
Are they to prove to London that the SWP is at the forefront of fighting for workers rights. Or are they for more sinister purposes.
A knock in the night by SWaPBots carrying the latest Cynical Wanttobe Worker. Arent we great!! Dont you realise the biggest group on the left are the ex-SWP Brigade, they dont forget, they didnt sign any official secrets act.
I bet your petitions have stars or ticks of people who have mistakenly bought your paper. Prove it otherwise

Give it a rest with your fronts, come clean. You would get a lot more respect. Get out of the political closet. Reveal yourselves for who you really are.

Its taken a week to report back from your glorious meeting. Why now? and what the F**k are you doing with the petitions?

by GAMA supporter Thu May 05, 2005 15:21

Details for the social in Dun Laoghaire on Saturday night coming can be found at

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69700

by Dave - swp Thu May 05, 2005 13:41

Great meeting in Dun Laoghaire last week which was addressed by a congolese immigrant who is being threatened with deportation and, with the aid of translation, a GAMA striker. 30 people showed up, which is a great turnout for a local meeting. Among the attendees were a number of asylum seekers from the local hostels, as well as local trade unionists and community activists. The meeting was initiated and organised by the local branch of the swp. It was well advertised, including on Indymedia, and anyone was welcome to attend and make any point they wanted to.
We learned a lot about the war in the Congo and introduced the GAMA strikers in attendance to a lot of local people who are now active in their support.
The meeting agreed to set up a local anti-racist network which will focus on support for migrant workers and asylum seekers. Of course anyone can be part of the network. We don't see ourselves in competion with RAR, Integrate Ireland, or any other anti-racist group.
Since then we have been out petitioning and campigning on both issues. This Saturday night there is a social event , with music , food and craic from around the globe.
Incidentally this is only one of the numerous anti-racist actions and events I have been involved in since I joined the SWP a few years ago.

by Stephen O'Connor Thu May 05, 2005 10:52

The Africans Rory is talking about are SWP members. Lets not try and pretend that this is an organic group that just sprung up as a reaction to state persecution. This is an SWP front, designed to recruit members to the SWP, and this meeting should be boycotted. It's well past the time for the SWP to stop their devious tactics, and now it is time for people to put a stop to it.

by rory hearne Wed May 04, 2005 22:49

1. Speakers have all been asked to speak at the meeting and have said they will speak. The issue of RAR not being on the leaflet was requested by the speaker in question but then clarified - all information now being distributed on the meeting includes the speaker as speaking on behalf of RAR

2. Civil Rights Movement Ireland is an organisation based on campaigning for the regularisation of all asylum seekers, for migrants rights and against racism. It was initiated last year by a group of africans who since then are also working with members of the indigenous irish community, chinese community, philipino and others. It has held a number of public meetings and is continuing to work alongside all groups campaigning for migrants rights.

by Still Waiting Wed May 04, 2005 14:31

Why have the RAR not been invited?

Who are the Civil Rights Movement?

Is anyone going to the SWP meeting?

Why was Patrick mis-informed?

by redjade Tue May 03, 2005 17:42

regularization/regularisation is actually the correct term to be used in terms of offering Asylum Seekers and illegal immigrants either residency, 'green card' work visas or citizenship and so on.

For example, Spain is currently in the process of regularising about 900,000 illegal immigrants/migrants that have been living and working illegally there for many years. The new socialist government decided it would be best if they exist legally and paying taxes rather than continue in the black market and be exploited.

What SWP means in the context of migrant workers is not explained.

There was a time (only a few weeks ago) when the SWP was calling for 'Amnesty' for all asylum seekers. Again, an odd choice of wordage.

Amnesty usually means a 'forgiveness' of past crimes etc. But seeking asylum is a legal process and a legal right to apply for, even if in the end denied - but it is *not* a crime. What the SWP was probably trying to demand, in its own bumbling sort of way, was 'regularisation.'

Words are just words - but words, and how you use them, do say a lot.

by Googler Tue May 03, 2005 17:19

Regularise
: to make regular by conformance to law, rules, or custom
Source:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=regularization

by Confused Tue May 03, 2005 17:15

WTF does REGULARISATION mean?
Hardly an anti-deportation standpoint I would have thought or are the SWP trying to somehow condone McDowells position?
No Borders
No Regularisation
No SWP

by Belfaster Tue May 03, 2005 15:39

Quote -

' I really hope they would not be stupid enough as to try and establish an Anti Racism Front in the South over the head of RAR.

Will be watching very closely'

by redjade Tue May 03, 2005 15:33

From above announcement:
'Patrick Maphoso (Migrant worker's campaign)'
--

Patrick is a RAR member and activist and the SWP knows this (he spoke for RAR at the SIPTU May Day event) - but he was a bit bamboozled into thinking 'CRMI' was an independent group. Up to him if he wishes to speak, however.

So, why does the SWP not want RAR's name on the flyers etc?

by Independent - Ex-SWP Tue May 03, 2005 15:23

Jaysus rory give it a rest, stop the tired old cliches,I left 14 months ago sick of the crap

build public support
build for the May Day March
publically active
We all know it means
BUILD THE PARTY
SELL PAPERS
RECRUIT
RECRUIT

Activists in the CRMI and the SWP
We all know its one and the same
can you prove otherwise?

Can you drop the crap and tell us why RAR havent been invited to this forum?

by Belfaster Tue May 03, 2005 15:05

The problem is not what you are doing {but as raised} as to how and why you are doing it.

Rory given the past campaigns set up by the SWP and then dropped when no longer of use {to the SWP} as opposed to the long term work put in by the likes of RAR, people understandably are concerned.

People like yourself Rory whom I can hold respect for may put in the work on the ground but it is the SWP as an organisation and the way it works or attempts to work with others, that is the real problem. As has been the case I have raised in the past in relation to another such organisation.

I have found even recently that to be the case, both through engagement on Indymedia and via other avenues.

Rory given those conditions and lack of change, {presently}, and until that change, I therefore think such initiatives on whatever issue initiated by the SWP, I believe will find limited support.

Comrade the problem for many is not with activists like yourself, but in the way the SWP leadership seeks to work within the movements generally.

I believe therefore the SWP leadership has two choices either to carry on as it has done and therefore become quite irrelevant within many areas of the movements and networks, or to take genuine activists concerns on board and seek to work on fraternal and equal terms.

Until they make that change then, as stated, they will find little support forthcoming in many areas of activism from genuine activists amongst the movements and networks.

The problem lays not with many activists within the SWP but in the old mindset of some within its leadership.

I cannot put my name presently but you and most others would know who I am.

All the best

by Truth seeker Tue May 03, 2005 14:53

I think, rory, you will find that it was RAR and the people in the hostels that organised the protests. If the SWP want to get involved in anti racism noone would oppose it. However, setting up a new front is using the same old tactics for the same desired result i.e. more members for the SWP. The SWP will drop anti racism as soon as another campaign comes along.

by BoBo Tue May 03, 2005 14:36

I just did a yahoo search using the term "civil rights movement ireland" and guess what - I got one hit. See related link.
Funny that.

by rory hearne Tue May 03, 2005 14:21

this is a meeting which is being organised to build public support for immigrants currently engaged in struggle - both workers on strike and asylum seekers protesting against their prison like conditions. it is similar to the one that was hosted by the SWP in liberty hall three weeks ago where over 50 attended -the majority of whom were migrants and from which activity was organised to build for the may day march and the protests for the asylum seekers on hunger strike.

Activists in the Civil Rights Movement Ireland and the SWP have been publically active in the support for both asylum seekers and GAMA workers.

Where is the venom of these indymedia posters for the political parties (some of whom on the left) who have not been so active?

by Annette Curtin Tue May 03, 2005 12:57

Some of these comments are just typical!
Firstly, the Civil Rights Movement is entirely democratic. Its policies and activities are decided at a weekly meeting which is open to ALL members of the SWP Political Committee.
Secondly, the list of speakers is purely for illustrative purposes. The Civil Rights Movement probably don't actually have their agreement to speak, but put their name down anyway to pull in a crowd. On the night, Tell-Us-A-Story Rory will announce from the platform that they unfortunately weren't able to make it, but here's a lovely range of SWP speakers wearing lots of different hats.
Never mind: we shall overcome!

by Belfaster Tue May 03, 2005 11:20

I really hope they would not be stupid enough as to try and establish an Anti Racism Front in the South over the head of RAR.

Will be watching very closely

by Peter Cosgrave Tue May 03, 2005 10:24

Sean, the swp have set up this new front so that they can get more members. They have seen all the publicity that has been generated by groups like RAR and thought that they could get members from it. The SWP will drop anti racism whenever they think they have got enough members from it. Exactly like they are starting to do on the Anti war front. The SWP have already moved some of their full timers from anti war into anti racsim and you can expect the IAWM to not be mentioned for a while. Like so many other fronts, Globalise resistance, No human is illegal, Another Europe is possible, anti nazi league, African Social Forum etc. etc etc, we can all expect them to fail. When campaigning against racism and deportations you must continue to campaign long after the media attention stops, the SWP will stop after they have thought they have reached the limit of members they can get from it (and indeed how many papers they can sell). That is why people should oppose this front, if they were succesfull (which they wont) they will build up a level of expectation in the ethnic minority community and then drop them, leaving groups like RAR to pick up the pieces. The SWP have nothing to offer, all they want is to take from the campaign. Expect this campaign to meet failure like all their others.

by Sean Mon May 02, 2005 11:35

Pissed off activist ,

I'm hearing ya loud and clear.

I think it is an absolute disgrace that anyone would even think of opposing deportations or representing immigrants, without asking RAR permission first and then, maybe the people themselves.

by another very annoyed person Sun May 01, 2005 22:00

something to do with the words...
on jumping bandwagons
in some sort of order.....
Wonder will red rory be able to figure this one out?
Wonder will he reply..
Will we care?
Does he?
I Dont!

by big fish Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:47

You do not have a GAMA worker speaking at that meeting. Name him! You simply put that on the leaflets to get people there. SWP are not to be seen on the GAMA issue and were not on most of the GAMA protests. Opportunism from the SWP that's disgusting.

by Pissed off activist Sat Apr 30, 2005 21:48

Few questions for the civil rights movement

What have you done to help asylum seekers in their fight to overcome discrimination and injustice?

How many deportations have you stopped?

What have you done for migrant workers?

Why is there no one from Residents Against Racism speaking at your forum?

Why are you not involved with RAR in their fight to stop deportations and raise awareness against state racism? they are the main anti racism group in Ireland against deportation and yet you want to start another group? Why? Why? Why?

Like all your other 'campaigns' we will not hear another word from it in a months time, please stop trying to get people along under false pretence. your dangerous