Messages

[Why wouldn't you want the authorities to make every effort to verify the identities of those entering the country and conduct rudimentary background checks using all available technologies including international criminal fingerprint databases?]

Now I have a question for you, If your applicant has his/her finger prints taken and if they are put into the international criminal database and they come back as having no record of criminality on that database - Do you now consider that person to be "vetted"?

How do you thoroughly vet someone whose identity you can't verify (or someone who comes from a country where records may Be non existent).

Is it a good start-yes

But it is the bare minimum we should be doing.

I would say that they have passed a preliminary vetting

Sounds like it is not possible to vet people, doesnt it. I mean do you think someone escaping war in the Sudan for example will have their finger prints on an international database. There is no way to vet 100% people and when you get a group in you will get the normal distribution of good people (vast Majority) and bad people (small minority) just like you do in the general population. The issue is the racist far right want you to equate black faces with all being unvetted criminals.

I see you then had a dig at "NGO's" which seems to be another Far Right thing to do these days, despite those clowns not even knowing what NGOs are or do and how fcuked we would be as a country without them. Which ones have you and issue with or is it all of them?

Why wouldn't you want the authorities to make every effort to verify the identities of those entering the country and conduct rudimentary background checks using all available technologies including international criminal fingerprint databases?

Seems like a no brainer to me

Re the NGOs-the fact that any taxpayer funded entity have a financial incentive to act against the best interests of the taxpayer and the everyday working person is mind boggling to say the least

Debating with you is like debating with a 5 year old. Never answer questions, make statements (like above) trying to put words in my mouth, clearly i never said any such thing. I don't know why I bother. You're just a racist, it's as simple as that.

The govt and various NGOs said that people without ID had their fingerprints run through an international criminal database

That was false......and I'm a racist for pointing it out

Now I have a question for you, If your applicant has his/her finger prints taken and if they are put into the international criminal database and they come back as having no record of criminality on that database - Do you now consider that person to be "vetted"?

How do you thoroughly vet someone whose identity you can't verify (or someone who comes from a country where records may Be non existent).

Is it a good start-yes

But it is the bare minimum we should be doing.

I would say that they have passed a preliminary vetting

Sounds like it is not possible to vet people, doesnt it. I mean do you think someone escaping war in the Sudan for example will have their finger prints on an international database. There is no way to vet 100% people and when you get a group in you will get the normal distribution of good people (vast Majority) and bad people (small minority) just like you do in the general population. The issue is the racist far right want you to equate black faces with all being unvetted criminals.

I see you then had a dig at "NGO's" which seems to be another Far Right thing to do these days, despite those clowns not even knowing what NGOs are or do and how fcuked we would be as a country without them. Which ones have you and issue with or is it all of them?

Why wouldn't you want the authorities to make every effort to verify the identities of those entering the country and conduct rudimentary background checks using all available technologies including international criminal fingerprint databases?

Seems like a no brainer to me

Re the NGOs-the fact that any taxpayer funded entity have a financial incentive to act against the best interests of the taxpayer and the everyday working person is mind boggling to say the least

Now I have a question for you, If your applicant has his/her finger prints taken and if they are put into the international criminal database and they come back as having no record of criminality on that database - Do you now consider that person to be "vetted"?

How do you thoroughly vet someone whose identity you can't verify (or someone who comes from a country where records may Be non existent).

Is it a good start-yes

But it is the bare minimum we should be doing.

I would say that they have passed a preliminary vetting

Where a thorough vetting is impossible or impractical I think we should be using every possible tool available and currently we're not doing that

(Even though the government and NGOs lied and said we were)

Now I have a question for you, If your applicant has his/her finger prints taken and if they are put into the international criminal database and they come back as having no record of criminality on that database - Do you now consider that person to be "vetted"?

How do you thoroughly vet someone whose identity you can't verify (or someone who comes from a country where records may Be non existent).

Is it a good start-yes

But it is the bare minimum we should be doing.

I would say that they have passed a preliminary vetting

Yeah, exactly. When are the Guards and politicians going to stop harassing local populations by forcibly planting hundreds of unvetted men from completely different cultures into peaceful communities?

Under the current laws (cause whether you like that or not, that's the way its meant to be, until its changed)

Unvetted person comes to Ireland and seeks asylum, under the current system how should that be done?

If they are vetted and approved, are you ok with that?  even though they are from different cultures? Or is it just different cultures that have you up in arms (literally) ?

I'm fairly sure, if yer man was honest, vetting would consist of looking at the colour of the applicants face and if it wasn't white vetting failed. In addition check persons religion, if Muslim vetting failed.

The government had claimed that people's fingerprints were being checked against international criminal databases

That was not true.

Do you think it is a far right opinion to ask that people with no (or visibly fake) Id  have their fingerprints checked against international criminal databases ?

I know social media isn't real but a lot of the bots and pro-Israel accounts are really attacking Bambie Thug. Essentially is this what we are exposing our poor kids to?

Of course, 'won't someone think of the children!' doesn't extend to the ones in Gaza...

That's that for another year...

Well if Michael Martin and RTE were in favor of Bambi Thug, a certain proportion of the population were always going to do the exact opposite

[Can you explain to me how you do "rigorous background checks" on someone fleeing a warzone.]

I seriously don't know what your question is

Are you saying that people (legal Irish Residents) of low moral character (with criminal convictions) shouldn't be allowed (on principal) to lead protests or are you saying that people (legal Irish citizens) of low moral character (with criminal convictions) should be legally prohibited from leading protests?

In some jurisdictions  you can be prohibited by a court of law from associating with "known criminals" as part of a sentencing agreement. If that, or similar processes are in place in Ireland, then I would expect and demand that the Gardai fully enforce it

Let's start with my 1st Question...


Can you explain to me how you do "rigorous background checks" on someone fleeing a warzone.

What war are the Georgians fleeing from?

The question is for the yank, you can keep your nonsense out of it dumbo

Well my first response was going to be that a large percentage of people seeking international protection were NOT COMING FROM WARZONES, but from countries deemed safe by our own government

But for those fleeing warzones, with just the clothes on their backs, rigorous vetting does becomes more problematic.

The government HAD been telling us that peoples fingerprints were being checked against CRIMINAL databases. This is now proven to be 100% untrue.

The Irish Refugee Council has even amended such verbiage on their website


And would totally explain situations like this: 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-41391070.html

And he then took a (taxpayer funded) legal action against the government to avoid deportation

Not your taxes though.

Pretty common right wing trope there

Doesn't make it any less true

I seriously don't know what your question is

Are you saying that people (legal Irish Residents) of low moral character (with criminal convictions) shouldn't be allowed (on principal) to lead protests or are you saying that people (legal Irish citizens) of low moral character (with criminal convictions) should be legally prohibited from leading protests?

In some jurisdictions  you can be prohibited by a court of law from associating with "known criminals" as part of a sentencing agreement. If that, or similar processes are in place in Ireland, then I would expect and demand that the Gardai fully enforce it

It's not really that complicated

Enforce existing laws

Deport people whose claims are denied

Rigorous background checks on new arrivals

Set Welfare benefits in line with European averages (not double)

Can you explain to me how you do "rigorous background checks" on someone fleeing a warzone. Do you send a form to their local police station?

Also, do you think their should be rigourous checks on all sides. Would there be anything to be said for some checks on these far right goons? I mean if they were involved in local sports, foroige, community games etc then they'd already have been Garda vetted, but we know none of them do anything in their community. I'm all for rigorous checks on them so we can see who has criminal records, beats their wife and sells drugs etc. I'm sure you'd agree you wouldn't want those type of people heading up your racist protests

Great

So we're in agreement then. More rigorous checks on incoming applicants are a good thing.

So we don't end up with a shambolic situation like the one highlighted last week where a guy (convicted sex offender) denied asylum in 3 separate countries can get in having destroyed a fake Swedish passport

And he then took a (taxpayer funded) legal action against the government to avoid deportation

I asked you a question,  you afraid to answer it

Your "question" makes absolutely no sense and is actually irrelevant as to whether rigorous background checks should be carried out on people seeking international protection (some of whom have no id)

So you're in agreement with me on these rigorous checks......thats fantastic!

If you want to start a separate thread about "legal Irish residents" who have criminal convictions, and what activities, they should and shouldnt be allowed to partake in go right ahead. There are laws already in place and I would think (and hope) they are being fully enforced.  If theyre not....then they should be

It's not really that complicated

Enforce existing laws

Deport people whose claims are denied

Rigorous background checks on new arrivals

Set Welfare benefits in line with European averages (not double)

Can you explain to me how you do "rigorous background checks" on someone fleeing a warzone. Do you send a form to their local police station?

Also, do you think their should be rigourous checks on all sides. Would there be anything to be said for some checks on these far right goons? I mean if they were involved in local sports, foroige, community games etc then they'd already have been Garda vetted, but we know none of them do anything in their community. I'm all for rigorous checks on them so we can see who has criminal records, beats their wife and sells drugs etc. I'm sure you'd agree you wouldn't want those type of people heading up your racist protests

Great

So we're in agreement then. More rigorous checks on incoming applicants are a good thing.

So we don't end up with a shambolic situation like the one highlighted last week where a guy (convicted sex offender) denied asylum in 3 separate countries can get in having destroyed a fake Swedish passport

And he then took a (taxpayer funded) legal action against the government to avoid deportation

It's not really that complicated

Enforce existing laws

Deport people whose claims are denied

Rigorous background checks on new arrivals

Set Welfare benefits in line with European averages (not double)

Continually letting people into the country when there's nowhere to put them? You couldn't make it up.

so blame the govt... not 'foreigners' and don't burn down hotels/accommodation!!

International Law is above and beyond teeny extremist minds.

Isn't that the main issue that came out of McNamara's dismantling of Helen McEntee-were not enforcing the laws that are already on the books

what laws arent being enforced again?

https://www.newstalk.com/news/state-is-failing-to-enforce-its-own-immigration-rules-michael-mcnamara-td-1634712

Michael McNamara is a qualified barrister

i see they are starting prosecutions. Youll be happy about that

They are perceived by a wide swath of the population as not enforcing the law

This is giving oxygen to the dreaded "far right".

They only have themselves to blame-the laws are there-enforce them

According to the Irish Independent they are getting dogs abuse on the doorsteps

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-members-raise-security-concerns-over-harassment-while-canvassing/a774403242.html

what laws arent being enforced again?

https://www.newstalk.com/news/state-is-failing-to-enforce-its-own-immigration-rules-michael-mcnamara-td-1634712

Michael McNamara is a qualified barrister