Demo Bring Back Great

by Temper Sat Aug 18, 2007 20:26

I would like to say that the issues that FF and its varied right-wing bed partners have created their
mandate on - The traditional family- The importance of the woman in the education of the Child-
the family occupying the heart of the Irish Constitution- are belied by the refusal of Brian Lenihan to
address the overtly racist policies of his predecessor.
The decisions made by Mc Dowell on immigration including a reduction in services, no
rape trauma counsellors and the decision resting on his desk, have not been reviewed
by Minister Lenihan, who has adopted that racism as his Modus Operandi.

If anyone can get the image of the family that I saw briefly in the irish Independent
of mother and son in Lagos and Great turning back to a Guinness billboard and
pointing, I wd like to have a T- Shirt made. The Irish Government are abusers
of the developing world through their support for the EIB. world bank and war-mongers.
I just wonder how long before people realise that the lies that they build their
'democracy' on are deeply anti-family and deeply exploitational.
Thanks Rosanna for you years of action.

by Green Watch Sat Aug 18, 2007 21:07

Just this week the Green Party have presided over a deportation of an Autistic boy and have given the "green light" to Aer Lingus axing jobs in Shannon and paying Belfast workers less.

by dj Sun Aug 19, 2007 18:53

Great was born in Italy. That should mean he is a european and a citizen of the EU. But thanks to the racist policies of europe and of ireland he is deported to the country of his ancestors.
This is the type of policy the people of ireland voted for in a referendum on citizenship.
Sometimes I am ashamed of my fellow countrymen and women.

by john darcy Sun Aug 19, 2007 19:03

To the last poster...you can't call a nation racist if nearly 80% voted for a policy that exists in most countries of the world. In an ideal world Ireland could accept everyone...but its not an ideal world.

by Monjolaoluwa Mon Aug 20, 2007 20:37

“In Nigeria Great will be treated like an outcast and there are no schools or system to support him”.
(above)

In this day and age, this is truly quite shocking. Nigeria has huge monies coming in from oil every day.

The Nigerian authorities must be told-- Loud and Clear- that such callous brutality should not be meted out to their citizens, but especially innocent children or any citizens of Nigeria.

Neither can the reputation of the entire Nigerian people be continually vilified in this way and closely linked with such Barbarism and indifference.

Anybody wishing may join us in a peaceful protest on Wed 22nd & Thurs. 23rd.Aug (from 11:00 AM) outside the Nigerian Embassy.

The Nigerian Embassy is located at 56 Leeson Park, Dublin 6.

Alternatively one could register a personal protest with the Nigerian Embassy directly at-:
01-660- 4051 or 01- 660- 4366.
or by Fax 01 660 4092.

We invite supporters from all Irish activists for our campaign including RAR for a good turn-out….
hoping to see you all there.

by Sceptic Mon Aug 20, 2007 23:33

"this was underhand and a vicious attack on a six year old autistic boy and his family."

It was not underhand – it was played out in public and was civilised and followed six years of state financed due process. Nor was it vicious and not was it an attack. Don’t abuse language.

by Starstruck Tue Aug 21, 2007 01:01

What a ridiculous comment,you call the deportation civilised?
What the fuck is civilised about transporting an ill child and his family against their will back to a place hes never before been and will most likely end up in his neglect or worse.

by D_D Thu Aug 23, 2007 13:57

Did demo happen? Was on Green 12.30-1. Did not see. Finally losing it?

by Emma - RAR Thu Aug 23, 2007 23:31

Yes D_D it did happen good few turned out and good media coverage and we were there until after two address was advertised number 94 Stephens Green

by Sceptic Fri Aug 24, 2007 09:44

Deportation in the manner it was done - placing people on a commercial flight - is not uncivilized. By your lights nobody could ever be involuntarily deported under any circumstances which would be an absurd situation.

by alluya Fri Aug 24, 2007 19:10

It is obvious that Lenihan singled out Great for deportation because he wanted to send a stark message to all Nigerian asylum-seekers here. He has drawn a heartless line in the sand. The message is that if he has no hesitation in deporting a sick child then he will have even less hesitation in deporting other Nigerians.

It has been obvious for a number of years that a decision has been made on high to rid Ireland of as many Nigerians as possible and to discourage Nigerians fleeing persecution and poverty from seeing Ireland as a welcoming and compassionate haven.

Great paid the price because of, not in spite of, his disability.

by Sceptic Fri Aug 24, 2007 20:45

It is important that people do not draw the wrong conclusions from this nor to use it to suggest that there is official prejudice against Nigerians, which there is not. Great was not singled out - rather his case was put forward for special treatment by his family because of his condition. However the courts supported the decision that this did not constitute grounds for reversing the refusal of asylum. It was other factors that the application had had fallen on and these are based on objective criteria and procedures with appeals and reviews at all stages. Many thousand of Nigerians have been permitted to stay with the full panoply of benefits including access to education, housing, health, social welfare and training services. This does not suggest prejudice and it is rabble-rousing and mischief making to suggest otherwise.

by Starstruck Sat Aug 25, 2007 04:37

Why would a situation of not deporting anyone be absurd ,pray tell?
Seems like the human thing to do is not to kick anyone out of a country they have chosen to reside in.
And dont give me the "floodgates" argument..please.

by Sceptic Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:10

Why not consider the "floodgates" argument - it is a valid concern though I would not use that term as it is designed to be emotive. An automatic right of residence in perpetuity to anybody and everybody who happens to arrive in the jurisdiction by whatever means would constitute an abandonment of one of the principal marks of sovereignty over territory and would lead to considerable political unrest. Completely open borders would mean mass migration from the areas of the earth where there are less public services and security available to areas where theses are available. Ultimately the latter the social and security systems of the receiving States would break down bringing a level down of living standards in the recipient States to those of the feeder States. This is because most of the world is impoverished. Only a few areas are prosperous and it is usually only western States that immigrants either can or want to go to. A social welfare system for example if based on social insurance has a contribution based system of entitlement which breaks down in the face of unregulated and large scale immigration. Nor could a Pay As You Go benefits system could not be maintained in the face of this situation. What is the answer for a civilized State that is not to be cold or heartless? The regulation of immigration and asylum based on law and procedure. Will this eliminate all hard cases that may have been on the margin? - no. But this is not an argument for the abandonment of all control.

by doubtful Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:24

Skeptic has completely overlooked the fluidity of capital & labour from working regions to poorer regions. It's odd considering the recent wealth of the region s/he seeks to demarcate owes so much of its prosperity to financial services. Migrants are consistent in that they not only contribute to the economy where they live but also contribute to the economies they left. They are in fact trans-national citizens. Skeptic has also completely overlooked the factors of poxy weather & ugly pretensious white trash natives which very often serve as excellent reason never to even begin the migratory process. Migration even at its height (European refugees to the Americas in the 19th century) has never seen all the poor people go. There is no logical or scientific (demographically or analytical social historical) reason to suggest Ireland ( an exceedingly poxy place which in long term forecasts will most likely become ever more poxier) is going to be flooded. It's just not that good a place to either work or live in.

by Sceptic Sat Aug 25, 2007 14:17

Space forbade a full treatment of the issues last time – it is not a case that I ignore other pertinent factors. Migrants contribute to both the economies they left and those they arrive in? Yes in general but that is not the say all controls should be abandoned altogether or that this trend is always true particularly if the scale of immigration overwhelms the recipient State’s unskilled labour force. And it is unlikely that remittances from migrants would replace the whole potential value of the lost emigrant from the poorer country. Immigration in earlier years to the US was different as there was no social welfare system. These things take time to develop – several generations – and a sudden large-scale influx of poor foreigners would undermine the system. To preserve the system the authorities must have a regulated system for economic migration and for asylum. The easiest way to destroy the social welfare system and other social and health services and to bid wages down drastically would be by way of large scale and unlimited unskilled or ‘welfare tourism’ immigration. I am not saying for a moment that the climate in Ireland is good or that we are good people or that much wealth is not recent – the Irish welfare system has been built up since the 40’s though. But the demand for migration into Ireland is very strong despite the weather and the various other unattractive features about Ireland of which I am fully aware. I did not demark anything – the reality is that there is a nation state and national economy. Of course there will be some migration from poor to rich areas – again this does not rule out having rules for economic migration and for asylum. That is all I am justifying where some are saying there should be no controls whatsoever.

by doubtful Sat Aug 25, 2007 15:07

After all migrants are rarely really that -"unskilled". As a human resource segment they can be quickly developed, are open to profitable exploitation by petty middle class & emergent commercial entities in equal measure - that's good news for centre and right wingers I would have thought. Hmmmmmm. You see you really getting it all the wrong way round Skeptic. The problems or unrest you hypothesise for the future are not related to migration or migrants, they are related to the under-development of those who already live in Ireland. The long dreary list of familiar neglects - marginalisation, snobbery based glass ceilings on CV address lines, those housing estates you've commented on in the last 24 hours on other threads, what you really want - is to radically change Irish inequality. Now to do that, we do not need to return to those Anarchists you thought were the arch-international terrorists in the USA in 1923 last night, who were persecuted for being migrant workers one year before the first US migration Act. You don't need to pretend that Irish sovreignity is anything more than forward looking potential which point you made when considering our ancient tribal woes last night - nope. You need migrants. You need their competition, stimulus, diversity & even their resentments. Because their presence is going to sort your society out for you & whilst they are here the money they send home is going to keep us all happy & safe.
Open that door.

by Sceptic Sat Aug 25, 2007 17:02

I am not arguing for or against migration into Ireland as such nor against unskilled natives - a somewaht stark economic term I agree but for shorthand it will do. Certainly we need migrants. I am saying that both economic migration and the migration of refugees needs some body of laws to regulate it as opposed to no laws or procedures at all. There are a host of issues concerning migration like the impact of the unskilled labour market and on the social welfare system and the good of migrants themselves. Many immigrants are indeed skilled or semi skilled. It can be argued that migration benefits the employers and upper classes to the detriment of the native les skilled people but surely that in an argument to restrict unskilled immigration?