Regulator56 wrote:Walrus, you would go to any length to support your discriminatory views towards immigrants.
The summary of the research commissioned by the equality authority and carried out by ERSI is as follows:
The study showed:
Irish applicants were called to interview 78 times while minority candidates were invited 38 times, giving a ratio of 2.05 -- Irish people were twice as likely to be called back.
In the case of Irish versus African applicants only, the study found 18 Irish applicants were called back compared to just five applicants with African sounding names.
When it came to Asian names, just seven were called back compared with 19 applicants with Irish names.
Eighteen Irish names got a call back compared to three with German sounding names.
Mr Bacon said: society and some employers, while having generally positive attitudes towards immigrants, may regard foreign workers as less productive because of factors such as language skills.
That is tangential to the research findings, he gave an opinion about the attitude of some employers and the society in general to explain the abysmal and disgraceful research finding. The research was based on sending out similar CVs with identical qualifications from Irish institutions where they were taught in English-so a question of language skills in the research itself is irrelevant.
Ok, before you complain about the length of this post, remember, you raised alot of issues. I have tried to answer all those issues in full. Whatever reply you make, please be specific, I have no intention of repeating. Don't assume anything, if its not clear, seek clarification, I don't want to be listening to you ranting and allowing this thread go further off topic than it already has.
Now, dealing with your comment
Be realistic,
Name one country that is prepared to priorities non EU nationals over nationals of the their country and nationals of other EU Countries? That why work permits are in place, and they reduced dramatically when newer countries came into the Union. Be honest
What African or Asian countries will prefer to give jobs to European or American over and above nationals of their own countries?
Was IBEQ questioned on this? How many of these business/Corporations were Irish owned? Irish managed?
What jobs were applied for? How come a lot of these people had no problems in catering, hotels, cleaning, bus drivers, Luas. who are these nationals that applied? (I am asking, not trying to challenge)
As I say again, in my opinion, if your qualified, your nationality should not be relevant, so long as you have the right to work
These problems are absolutely no different in any other country. the immigrant always will be kicked to the curb first.
Sadly, in this country, its not about what you know but who you know. In business, its all about connections. Trust me, whether its in sport or business, there are many people who are in the position that they are in because of who they are connected too. If Irish people have problems getting in, immigrants will have it worse. Employers are not willing to invest in people, they want to know what you have achieved immediately and whether you will get customers/clients in immediately. Can an immigrant that it not even from Europe say that they can do that? Remember alot of stuff is done informally here. (not a good thing)
Regulator56 wrote:
You said you don't agree with my comments or indeed that of the researchers, would that surprise anyone MrWalrus? because they have not concluded that Nigerians or black Africans are inherently lazy like you have previously suggested, then you would disagree. Keep wallowing in your ignorance!
I said I don't agree with some of your comments or the reports. I acknolwedged their is discrimination. You can read? I only asked, was IBEQ (Irish business employers group) questioned on this. What type of employers did they talk too?
Regulator56 wrote:
You have consistently argued that Mr Scullys comments were taken out of context and cannot be ascribed as dearly beloved until we know exactly what service the black Africans were supposedly aggressively demanding representation for
I said it might have been taken out of context. "might". I have also said that if it was in the ordinary course of council business ,then its dearly beloved. I also said that if it was immigration representations and he agreed to help other groups, then it would be dearly beloved. Don't go gobbing off on what I have said on this thread, other threads on this site or other forums, when you are clearly not prepared to quote what I actually said. "supposedly aggressively demanding", please, even the wacist brigade did not dispute whether or not they acted in such a manner.
Regulator56 wrote:
I have consistently said your view is nonsensical and hypocritical,
You don't even interpret or properly cite what I say in the first place. You continuously misrepresent what I actually have said. Every time you make comments and I rebut them to have little to say. You have made comments alleging what I have said like the british citizenship issue and have yet to provide the link that shows that I said that.
Of course its nonsensical when you prefer to stick to your version of what is actually said.
Hypocritical, point it out. Then you state your country of origin., You won't do that because you know that the it is highly likely then that you would have to get off your high horse, when your country is assessed.
Regulator56 wrote:
I don't think the context of the service been sought by his black African constituents is relevant and cannot be used as a sort of caveat to justify his comments. He labelled an entire group of people as having some idiosyncratic nature of aggressiveness and rudeness and proceeded to indicate he would stop representing them
He was referring to the actual groups living in Naas that came to him not the entire Black Community. He said he refused to deal with them because of actual behaviour that he experienced. He actually said that he was referring them to other councillors. Why deal with people he simply is incapable of dealing with. He got up their noses when they reacted in the way they did, probably did not like what he had to tell them with regard to their entitlements. They did not believe that he was helping them, they got aggressive, so, let them deal with another person. The immigrant is better off. If you were dealing with customers, who would you want from your staff to deal with "difficult" people? Competent and patient person, or someone the customer does not trust?
Regulator56 wrote:
Why should I disclose my nationality to you? It is purely irrelevant in the context of this discussion and more importantly it is absolutely none of your business.
You were the person who asked me how did I know whether you were Irish or not. Was I suppose to guess? Oh your such a tease. Why bother entering it into discussion. Yes I assumed that you are not Irish, but you left it open as to whether or not you are Irish, but it appears, thereafter that you may not be. What was your point in doing that
As you did not say you were Irish at that time, I assume that you are not. You are more than welcome to correct me. I don't care what you are.
Regulator56 wrote:
I am not arguing about visa requirements here Walrus-stop purposely trying to confuse issues.
I mentioned it, because it is no different to the policy of preference the Irish give to other countries. I simply was seeking your opinion on visa requirements for certain countries, which you mentioned (Jamaica for example)
I hope you are no longer confused
Regulator56 wrote:
The argument about Australia started when I gave an analogy about a German and Australian couple with an Irish child- I asked you if zambrano can apply to the Australian if he was illegal. You said it will favor the Australia because the Aussies have a history with Ireland so that would be put into consideration by officials at INIS and would lead to a positive outcome.
Not quite.Zambrano will apply because of the Aussie falls within the facts of Zambrano. The preference or the lack of difficulty was in reference to what might happen if the case was considered under Irish immigration law. Shame you refuse to read what I said.
Regulator56 wrote:
I said to you dont you think that would be discriminatory if other non -EU nationals are treated differently and you went on a tirade of telling BS about some special relationship with US, Canada and Australia.
What is bullshit about it? Any American, Canadian or Australians on the forum? I will ask them, Compare to other non nationals on this site, and the problems they experience, how many of you get refused entry into the country, get refused residency cards, why is it that you don't need visas, how have receive deportation orders as quickly as we see other non eu's? (Take the awful messy bureuacratic crap out of the equation for one second)
Regulator56 wrote:
You Walrus said:
How is there any paradoxical? If Americans, Aussies, Candians etc have immigration problems in Ireland, they will be looked after one way or another, so long as they have money. The Dept knows where its bread it buttered
Can you please explain if you can what you meant by the above comment?
You talk about hycrocrisy. You talk about illegal Irish people, who are mostly in the country that you mentioned. They have, in the past, being treated very well by America, compared to other illegals, eg Donnelly Cards etc. THey have been granted visas to enter their countries relatively easier than many other countries.
It would be pretty bad diplomacy if the Irish government started acting harsh those nationals who come to Ireland, wouldn't it, since, Irish Governments have actually gone out to set up talks with US etc politicans to get a deal for the Irish illegals. Would you agree?
The Irish government are hardly going to crack down or do anything untowrt to those nationals who come to Ireland, especially when (a) There are Irish, both legal and illegal in their countries (b) Many of their major corporations have (or were in Ireland or will) come to Ireland
If China expanded their business here to Ireland (there is some talk of a major company coming to the Midlands) and expanded in the manner that many American business have/did (eg Intel, Dell, Google), you can bet your bottom dollar, the Chinese will have it far easier than they do now, in getting to reside in Ireland. Everyone wins, (well, poor Chinese will have to put up with a horrible lifestyle and expensive living)
That is what I meant by having its bread buttered both ways. For now, African continents have not done this (for now) Money talks.
For someone whom appears to know what basic economics are, if you think this is BS, I give up , you will not survive in this country which such nativity.
By they way, this is not justifying what happens, its explaining why it happens.
Regulator56 wrote:
Again you go on pontificating about how certain people should behave or live their lives.
Person taxed to their eyeballs are entitled to pontificate if its their money that it supporting certain lifestyles. (That includes Irish people too) You deal with hefty tax bills later in your life in Ireland, you will begin to understand.
Regulator56 wrote:
You recently suggested that immigrants should practice family planning because Ireland cannot guarantee them residence here even if an Irish child is involved which I think is what Zambrano clarified.
It was a guilb put down to the self serving whingers who shout "second class citizenship". If they felt like that, why did they have a baby? Why did they come all the way to Ireland, a foreign land, especially to have the child, when the law was reasonably clear that they might not be protected. It is utterly self serving and a false sense of expectation that other should feel sorry for them.
Regulator56 wrote:
Now you are saying wives of African taxi drivers are not working, I asked you to provide proof of that statement, as which other things, you fail to provide evidence and went on about some chicken and bull story about how the Irish are model citizens all over the world.
I never said that the Irish were models. You did. I can assure you, they have done a lot of harm too. Look at Politics in America, ask the Democratic Party. The Irish in the Roman Catholic Church in America and Australia for example. Your and others are the ones who are so obsessed with the Irish in other countries , that is why I responded in detail, Christ you can not follow your own argument now
. I simply pointed out their achievements and their attitudes in other countries. All you lot do is complain. Why are European countries so hostile to people from Africa and Asia? Please, I want your opinion.
As for the wife and taxi man. Again, I was talking about work permit holders and that I have no problem with them in Ireland because they work and more importantly, they were actually invited to Ireland. You went on about immigrants who work as taxi drivers, I asked you whether they came in as work permit holders, I put it to you that they don't/did not. I never actually said the wives don't work. You suggested "what about" the wives that do not work. It was your invitation to discuss these people, it was you that brought up the scenario. All I said thereafter, is, they should be working and I spoke about single mothers.
Christ, follow your line of argument will you, please. Actually, instead of assuming, simply ask, whether I said that. Clarify what I said if you are unsure of what I said or it is not clear what I said. Have I ever tried to misinterpret you or others? No. So don't do it to me.
I said that I have no problem with working Immigrants (ie work permit holders and former work permit holders - . I have no problem with working immigrants because they won't rely on State resources and won't be burdens to the state. You then some how suggest that I do have a problem with immigrants because I give out because the wife of a working immigrant does not work herself.? Is that the correct interpretation of what you are getting at? The spouses of work permit holders are not allowed to work they are on stamp 3,which is unfair and I am hardly going to criticise them, so I don't know why you brought up the wife of a taxi drive, because very few taxi drivers ever owned a work permit. Many of them got stamp 4 via Irish child, so, each parent is assessed individually. But, hey, I made it clear when you referring to the fathers, that I asked "what about single mothers?"
Regulator56 wrote:
I brought up the Nigerian taxi driver that was killed in Dublin to highlight the severe and difficult environment in which immigrant taxi drivers operate in Ireland.
And I acknowledged that Nigerian Taxi Drivers have it difficult. Very difficult. I have witnessed the crap they get at first hand, by customers and fellow Irish Taxi drivers. But when it comes to assaults and even murders , Irish taxi drivers are in the same position and have reported to be in the same position as that man, it gets reported, but no where near the same publicity as this gentleman because of his colour (I don't complain about its publicity - I wish it did not happen in the first place) . Drunks and junkies don't discriminate on their victims.
Regulator56 wrote:
as for whether his murder was racially motivated, I would leave that to the courts to determine.
Be honest, you were angling the race motive. I don't criticize you for doing it.
Regulator56 wrote:
If I recollect correctly, when the Nigeria youngster was killed last year, the initial suggestions by the Gardai were that it wasn't a dearly beloved attack,
That is questionable, it was possibly race motivated, but I have heard from people around that area who say it was not race motivated (people are all experts now, but say nothing when asked to go to court to give evidence, trust me on that one, I know from my family who were victims of a crime) that it was over a girl and he was a cocky person who got mouthy (no crime in being cocky and mouthy that by the way, and it does not matter what he did , he should never have been killed or even assaulted)
Regulator56 wrote:
as with this case the radio commentary on Joe Duffy etc is always self-defense BS. I will let the courts decide on that, so do not say it wasn't racially motivated as in a statement of FACT! It is indeed possible that it was.
Joe Duffy, lord. What you hear on that show, like the people I have spoken to about that case are as reliable as a tits on a bull.
Better off leaving the case to the courts. If it was not for the Wesely Houlihan libel, the media would have been all over this and labelling these guys dearly beloved immediately.
Regulator56 wrote:
You had previously said you had no problem with immigrants that are working, now you say you have a problem if their spouse are not working- you are morbidly retarded if you think anyone believes you.
I was referring to work permit holders. But I answered your example in my last post anyway. See above for clarification. The sentence is confusing to be honest
"you had no problem with immigrants that are working", yes that is true
"you have a problem if their spouse are not working" What? Since when did individuality cease? Does the spouse have no life herself? Since the spouse, from the specific example that you gave will be entitled to claim social, surely they can work too? They have not lost the ability to function without the spouse have they? Irish families, both parents are expected to work, why was the immigrant no different (I say was, because everyone can't get jobs now)
Regulator56 wrote:
You said:
am talking about father who came to Ireland AFTER 2005 Scheme was over. I have issue with those who stayed away from the mother and child for up to 2-4 years, that to me is unacceptable, and if they were Irish deserve a kicking. Most of the fathers who tried to get in after the IBC Scheme are in Court at this time.
I am asking why those fathers could not come to Ireland to join their families? Can you provide evidence of how many applications were made by fathers to join their children in Ireland? How many of those applications were granted? How long did these applications take before decisions were made?
Here is a brief list of the court cases alone. There are plenty more of those type of cases (pre zambrano. There are loads of High Court cases waiting to be ruled in light of zambrano that have yet to be heard/determined or settled. I assure you, most concern the scenerio that I have suggested. Look for "zambrano type cases"
http://www.courts.ie/__80256FFF005DDD92 ... anguage_en~
That list is only the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.courts.ie/LegalDiary.NSF/PDA ... nish=20000
"Z cases"
http://www.courts.ie/LegalDiary.NSF/PDA ... nish=45298
Pre Zambrano
I can't say how many, but I believe that there is at least 100-150 cases still in the High Court. I can try and get this properly confirmed, somehow. Give me time.
As for what happened pre zambrano, look at these. look at the facts of the cases, the lengthy 2-4 + years gap, (even eight years) just in case you thought that I was making it up. Since you don't like me putting up cases , I trust you will read them. these is only a small amount by the way, there are many more, but I think you will get the picture
Some of the following:
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
.
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
Here is what Hedigan cited another judge saying
I concur with the following statement of Birmingham J. in G.O. & Others [2008] IEHC 190:-
“I cannot accept that it is open to individuals to arrive in the State on what is essentially a false basis, as indicated by the rejection of their claim to asylum status, and then proceed to so organise their family affairs as to frustrate the operation of the immigration system.”
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B ... anguage_en~
This is a big case! Asibor
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean
To answer your question, very very very very very very very few is any, succeeded prior to Zambrano. In fact, I would not be surprised if any succeeded, especially if they are from Africa. The point of putting up those cases, by the way was not to gloat but to show bone fide.
As for what has happened since Zambrano, well, looking at this site, when you take away the people who were on stamp 1 and 3, (and somehow, some on 2) it seems very few have got decisions. Don't know why. If people fall squarely under Zambrano ie (lived with their family at all times) then the delay is wrong!
But the cases above are not totally factually similar to Zambrano , due to the gaps, so, its likely another case may go to the CJEU, if the Irish persist, who knows?.what do you think they will try to do?
(Now, this is exactly why this thread was opened, to discuss what will happen next, you don't accept the bone fide of the thread, but others might at least look at the links and the discussion, whether yours or mine, and think for themselves)
Regulator56 wrote:
My summary is that the Dept was culpable in not granting visas for these men to join their families. A lot of them had to come to Ireland illegally after applications to join their families had been refused several times. So do not be disingenuous and say those men abandoned their families- in most cases they were not given the opportunity by your mates in TIPP and Dublin..
How were they culpable? (not an attack, its an honest question, requiring an non bitichy answer) THis new right was only created/recognised in March 2011. Dercei justified their actions in some limited cases. (limited)
Moving forward, and dealing with what you said, or appeared to have said,
You are justifying their actions, ie entering illegally?
1. Why did so many take so long to come over, not all of them were poor and many could afford tickets. Some had business and jobs. Not everyone in these countries are utterly poor or live in huts
2. THe IBC 05 Scheme clearly stated that there was no right to family reunification, why didn't the fathers come over and sneak in before the deadline?, thus having no problems now
I will not take the approach that you have taken towards my comments and try and misinterpret, so instead I will ask you to clarify.
1. Does your statement justify their actions by making false asylum claims, telling lies about their countries (look all of the links above involved asylum) and in effect, cost this State millions in free legal aid to provide legal services to these people who decide to appeal and some who went ahead with judicial review of that decision?
2. If so, how can you justify it?
3. If so, would you advocate that these people, if they do now get status, undertake to repay every penny that was spent on them by this State during their asylum case.
4. What part of the clear warning under the IBC scheme did they not understand?
5. Do you want me to dig out the cases, that show in the facts of the case that mothers neglected to mention in their asylum case that she was in a relationship or married or where they neglected to put the fathers name on the birth cert? (Not every case, a few)
Obviously that does not apply to those who came in on visas.
Can you please clarify whether you are justifying and accepting or defending people who breach immigration laws.
If so, do you not understand why there is so much hostility towards these people?
If so, do you now understand what I mean, when I say, they have had it easier than someone who had to apply and renew work permits?
I am accusing you of nothing, I am asking you, you may very well be just stating fact (or stating the bleeding obvious). I have little or no confidence that you will answer. Please prove me wrong
What do work permit and former work permit holders think?
Instead of risking deportation, why didn't they apply for residency and wait in their countries first. That what work permit holders had to do.