Stop the Mass Deportation

by . Wed Jun 08, 2005 17:28

.

by . Wed Jun 08, 2005 17:56

.

by Confused Wed Jun 08, 2005 17:59

Why should we stop the deportations?

surley they have gone through the whole process and have had decisions made against them

why protests , are the deportations illegal, then challenge them in the courts, prevent them with a court order.

I am not against immigration but if people are here illegally then deport them

by PseudoNom Wed Jun 08, 2005 19:32

Claims that Ireland is being "flooded" by bogus asylum applicants are routinely blasted by RAR and their ilk.

Another is that claims are at a trickle compared to previous years.

A total of 1,259 new asylum applications were received by ORAC in the first quarter of 2005.

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html

That's approximately 100 per week. Of those, al least 90 will be bogus claimants.

Yet, a "mass deportation" might mean the repatriation of c30 people or 2 or 3 days worth of claimants, once in a blue moon.

So RAR, using your own language, have we a "mass influx" of predominantly bogus asylum seekers, or not?

And why should anyone give a toss about those who have abused asylum, at our expense, to circumvent immigration laws and undermine the credibility and existence of the 1951 Convention.

by resist deportations Thu Jun 09, 2005 15:14

well my belief is that the threat of deporatation has to be maintained - but the actuality will be low because of the massive contribution of "illegals" doing the shitty jobs keeping the anoymous contributers to indymedia in fast food, child minding service etc etc ..

The whole sham of the “asylum process” deliberately only recognises a handful of refugees. The others are already declared, in advance of any hearing, by our justice minister to be bogus.

However, though some are then brutally deported, it's a relatively small number. The process is based fundamentally on creating and maintaining large pools of “illegals” with no rights under constant threat of deportation with no status they can be exploited by our rapidly growing economy. An end to borders is a class demand of use to all workers because it can boost all our wages and conditions in the long term.

by Robert Thu Jun 09, 2005 16:37

Deportations need to be carried out, if only 0.6% of Nigerian claimants turn out to be genuine, the other 99.4% should be deported. They have caused the state enough money all ready.

The process needs to be quicker if anything.

by resist deportations Thu Jun 09, 2005 16:43

If they are "causing" the state money why not let asylum seekers work while their claims are being processed?

by ohforheaven'ssake Thu Jun 09, 2005 16:47

You are like a broken record. You know - the old vinly things that had a crack in them and kept repeating the same bits when the needle got stuck.

by Robert Thu Jun 09, 2005 16:49

You need a work permit for that. Why should we allow them to work when according to the government - 99.4% of Nigerians are found to be bogus. In any case, most of the money is caused by appeals and the legal process in general. BTW, I see your protest mustered - wow 20 people.

by Michael Gallagher - RAR Thu Jun 09, 2005 19:48

The government, according to the average person in the street, are a corrupt bunch of liars. If we where to jump to a reaction every time on information 'according to the government', well the sky is the limit on what they would have us believe!

by Pseudonom Thu Jun 09, 2005 19:54

(well my belief is that the threat of deporatation has to be maintained - but the actuality will be low because of the massive contribution of "illegals" doing the shitty jobs keeping the anoymous contributers to indymedia in fast food, child minding service etc etc ..)

If this is the case, what the hell are the tens of thousands of Eastern Europeans doing?

(The whole sham of the “asylum process” deliberately only recognises a handful of refugees. The others are already declared, in advance of any hearing, by our justice minister to be bogus.)

Factually wrong. Each case is determined individually.

(However, though some are then brutally deported,)

None are "brutally deported" as a rule. Having refused to leave voluntarily, even with financial assistance, some force the State to remove them and "brutally" resist.

(it's a relatively small number.)

It's pathetically small, agreed.

(The process is based fundamentally on creating and maintaining large pools of “illegals” with no rights under constant threat of deportation with no status they can be exploited by our rapidly growing economy.)

Asylum seekers cannot work. If they do, they are doing so illegally whilst being subsidised by the Irish taxpayer. Also, in doing so, they undemine legal immigrants and make their lives harder. Unlike asylum seekers, if legal immigrants lose their jobs, the State is not already housing, clothing and feeding them (or if you will, wiping their bottoms), thus increasing the opportunities for their exploitation.

(An end to borders is a class demand of use to all workers because it can boost all our wages and conditions in the long term.)

Complete and utter drivel. This is the first boom in the history of the State where wages did not increase significantly. In many cases, they are falling. Can you guess why?

by Robert Thu Jun 09, 2005 20:15

when you say that, you’re talking from the average RAR members viewpoint. Your policy = no deportations, even for proven fraudsters / criminals. The figures don't tell lies. I repeat, only 0.6% of Nigerians who come to Ireland are proved genuine. In the Netherlands - 0.6%, Austria - 0.3% and Spain - 0.1%.

For those who are mathematically challenged, that means 99.4% of Nigerians who come here are bogus. We can't all be racist, these people are fraudsters and deserve to be deported. The only problem is, we need to up the numbers. This Country won’t be taken for a ride!

Pseudonom, you are dead right – keep up the good posting!

by PseudoNom Thu Jun 09, 2005 20:53

With a 96.4% rejection rate, we have a situation where, for every 1 million we spend on Nigerian refugess, we squander a quarter of a billion on bogus Nigerian asylum seekers.

Did RAR ever hear of overseas aid?

Have RAR any basic concept of right and wrong and/or thoughts about making a real difference, outside of our borders and their own pitifully narrowed minds?

by Michael Gallagher - RAR Tue Jun 14, 2005 17:21

RAR never said they where in favour of not deporting "proven fraudsters/criminals", but you would lump most immigrants into these catagories, including people who are in dire circumstances and would pay illegal traffickers whatever to try and make a new life for themselves and their families. If you didn't see the documentary on RTE last week showing the plight of families that have been broken up as a result of deportations, well I suggest you get a copy. If you have seen it or are still unmoved after viewing it, then your bigotry borders on racism!
Maybe you and psuedonym will identify yourselves, in the meantime you are both a waste of time.

by PseudoNom Tue Jun 14, 2005 19:10

(If you didn't see the documentary on RTE last week showing the plight of families that have been broken up as a result of deportations, well I suggest you get a copy. If you have seen it or are still unmoved after viewing it, then your bigotry borders on racism! )


Isnt that the beauty of diversity Michael?

The individual freedom to make up your mind and not have someone else decide what is right and wrong, and ram it down your throat screaming racist if you disagree?

Well, I disagree.

If I recall, one failed asylum seeker broke up her family before coming here, illegally, and presenting an unsubstantiated claim.

The sooner her remaining siblings are returned, the sooner her entirely self-inflicted "plight" will end.

In the interest of diversity, I must insist you disagree.

by Sherlock Holmes Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:08

Michael,

Pseudo is a racist troll who consistently posts irrelevant, idiotic, racist bullshit. He is a liar who continuosly contradicts and confuses himself. Do not waste your time trying to debate him as he is incapable of rationality. See this link for some details http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69951&condense_comments=false#comment110846

If you are looking for more proof just go through any RAR thread and you will see him contradict himself, lie and spout bullshit

by Michael Gallagher - RAR Wed Jun 15, 2005 23:38

That certainly jumps out in his last outburst. Pseudo? Maybe that should be Psycho! I for one won't be wasting any more time reading or replying to him or her.

by PseudoNom Wed Jun 15, 2005 23:53

For Gods sake ladies, get a room.

by anti-fash Thu Jun 16, 2005 06:42

with all the branding that goes on around this issue, is it any wonder that people might not be inclined to use their first names. Even so, 3 posters for the proposition seem to use pseudonyms as opposed to two questioners (confused and pseudonym).

If i point out that wanton abuse contravenes editorial guideline 4 '...'Play the ball, not the player'.', this comment might get pulled, so i'll just say that such vitriol is likely to be counterproductive to the argument of its purveyor.

On THIS therad, the would-be right-wingers have left RAR wanting re facts.

Some public-relations savy needed maybe, in the way RAR present their case? Its emotive angles remind me of Youth Defence (and i don't mean to be offensive to anyone).

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:45

You will see clearly from the link that I posted that I dealt with FACTS. Debating with someone who consistently lies is not debating. Why should someone even attempt to debate with someone such as Pseudo who consistently confuses himself, contradicts himself, and lies. Perhaps if you read through both threads you yourself would have been able to see this. Or what you could also do is search through previous threads and you would see some other blatant lies he has published. Here's one link in his previous incarnation as NTR where he lies saying that the High court, the embassies, Amnesty international and UNHCR investigate asylum claims. http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68507&search_text=residents%20against%20racism&results_offset=30#comment99880

So we will deal with facts. The racist troll deals in lies and hate.

by dubliner Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:48

So are the facts regarding the huge percentage of bogus applications true or are they not? If they are true then the two posters who are arguing on that basis are perfectly entitled to their opinion. Much easier to attack them as fascists and racists of course.

Others have made good points regarding the use of immigrant workers to keep down wage levels but as far as I am aware, they are almost all people who have permits. Just on a purely subjective level I notice very few Africans working in the main low wage jobs: catering, cleaning etc. That would indicate that very few of those being processed for asylum are working illegally.

As for the "open borders" argument, that is just naive. No state (and yes I'm afraid there will never be a stateless anarchist society) can just open its frontiers and allow anoyne who wants to come. It is unsustainable and in the Irish context the only beneficiaries would be the low wage bosses who are making huge profits out of non-nationals. Maybe that is an issue that RAR might tackle?

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:19

I will repeat again because people seem to be completely unable to read. Many people have been deported unfairly. The statistics do not accurately reflect the truth. The Prime Time documentary covered all this. The solicitors interviewed explained how the system is completely geared against applicants.

Here is a link comparing several countries IN 2002.

Four out of Five immigrants are migrant workers. RAR do campaign against the exploitation of migrant workers, it is ill informed to say otherwise. One way to stop expoitation is to have the worker hold the permit and not the employer. Immigrant workers used to keep wages down is ill informed also. Perhaps people would be so kind as produce something like EVIDENCE to back these claims up. Economists would surely love to know that immigrants don't fill labour shortages due to an ageing population and falling birth rate, instead they are brought in to keep wages down, and who are these others who "have made good points regarding the use of immigrant workers to keep down wage levels" I didn't see anything of the kind on the two threads.

by dubliner Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:49

I would agree that a work permit should not be held by an employer. It is open to all kinds of abuse. Anyone who works on a building site can provide ample evidence of how the rates for unskilled, and some skilled labour have fallen, or certainly not increased, due to the turnover of immigrant labour who will take jobs at low rates. The same applies in catering and bar work. There are very few pubs left in Dublin where bar workers are union members, and almost none where all bar workers are members. This allows owners to pay ridiculously low rates of pay, and to deny basic entitlements to working hours and holidays.

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Jun 16, 2005 14:00

Employers recruit labour from abroad, foreign employees cannot apply from Ireland for a permit. You are correct in saying that Union membership is important for migrant workers but the root of the exploitation is the bonded slavery that is caused by the employer holding the permit. Their has been agreed wage levels between the trade unions and the employers in the building trade. Irish employees know their rights and are paid this, or above this level. Recruiting migrant workers to trade unions will be one step in dealing with this expolitation of migrant workers, also if you give the permit to the employee they could shop around for the best rate and the employer would not be able to pay them a lower rate.

The problems you are describing in bars are caused by ridiculously weak trade unions. SIPTU have long sold out their workers in no strike deals and complete inaction. A strong trade union movement is needed, uniting all workers in Ireland. By allowing a situation to develop where Irish workers blame migrant workers for problems instead of the employers and government actions, or indeed inactions, then the situation will deteriorate even more. The only people to benefit will be greedy employers and their friends in Governement.

by redjade Thu Jun 16, 2005 14:05

'the root of the exploitation is the bonded slavery that is caused by the employer holding the permit.'

It is important to note that the GAMA scandal may not have ever happened in the first place if there was a Green Card styled system. Turkish workers, being allowed to work in the country, could simply find work elsewhere in Ireland - thus, if GAMA screwed you, you could go elsewhere.

The current system not so much 'ripe for abuse' it is *designed* for abuse of the labour rights of migrants and Irish/EUians alike.

by anti-fashion Fri Jun 17, 2005 06:43

the nation-state is an artificial construct, and is the wolf guarding the sheep.

However, for too long countries have been made desolate by emigration, as workers chase capital to the ends of the earth, often fleeing poverty enforced by imperialism (C19 Ireland and C21 Nigeria).

Getting rid of borders without simultaneously removing capitalism, is a recipe for gerater exploitation. Capitalists are saying - 'what we can't out-source over there, we'll get them to come here'.

Arguments that immigrants are good for the economy are tantamount to a commodification of people. In capitalist speak, what is good for the economy, above all means good for capitalists.

Let people come and go as they please without coercion, political or ECONOMIC.

Problems in Trade, aid and debt are some root causes worthi looking at.

in your post on 'Facts' you provided a link which was supposed to prove psudonmym a 'liar' among other things.

I don't share psudonym's apparent respect for state-sponsored institutions, but he did not seem to me to be 'a liar' (a phrase I haven't heard except for childish rage or bullying, or from the DUP. A liar is someone who says they have never lied...).

If you prefer to throw mud than engage meaningfully with people you disagree with, how can you learn from them, or anyone learn from you?

If you don't want to alienate your argument, try to understand others too. Truths are borne from honest questions, and you can't presume dishonesty just because people disagree with you, or you with them.

by Sherlock Holmes Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:41

You seem to be confused as to what a liar is so here is a link for you http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liar

I oppose capitalism and I am a socialist. I fight racism on a socialist platform. As for your liberal bullshit of learning from racists, tell that to ethnic minorities in this country. Your beliefs belong in the Irish Times and with the chattering classes. I am not a liberal don't take me for one.

As for pseudo being a liar he clearly is. If you had bothered to check through the links you would see that he clearly lies. There is no point "debating" this person as he is beyond "understanding". Check out the links before posting. The courts do not investigate asylum claims, they never have. A judicicial review, when taken, will investigate procedural matters only. The Dept. of Justice do not consult Amnesty International. Decisions are given to UNHCR, but the UNHCR are not consulted in the individual decisions in asylum cases, another lie.

If you had bothered to check the link before that, you will see that again he clearly lies during that thread. Of course since your liberalism has dictated that you have much to learn from this racist, you seem to have a desire to listen to his lies. In his posts he doesn't produce evidence, makes outrageous claims which are 99% of the time complete fabrications from this deluded individual. Racism and racists need to be opposed. Pseudo is a racist, don't doubt it, don't think you have anything to learn from him.

by Worker Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:26

Mary O'Rourke, arguably the only Social Democrat in Fianna Fail, attacked the asylum system in the Seanad. Mary O'Rourke is the leader of the Seanad http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0615/immigration.html. She has been supportive of the bring them home campaign aswell

Racists trolls should be ignored. The one posting here has continually posted untruths on indymedia. He pulls his "facts" from the crevice of his ass. Most posters on indymedia ignore him. They know all about him and his "debating". The most hilarious thing about him is his "I'm not a racist, but anti racists are". Absolute Lunatic.

by PseudoNom Fri Jun 17, 2005 19:34

Its hard not to be a little impressed with dear “Sherlock” isnt it. Three paragraphs and not a decent point in one.

An anti capitalist and an anti racist. Being anti anything is what he lives for as a means of shoring up his own negativity in general. One the one hand he tells us the economy will melt without immigrants and on the other that he hates capitalism. No contradiction is too bizarre.

And no thread is ever really finished until this bitter little pill has labelled all he/she disagrees as a “racist”. Best thing that ever happened to him/her, this racism lark.

But not before he attacks the forum, the media, the moderators and probably the very keyboards used to convey any message he dislikes.

As for “worker”

You might enjoy Mary O'Rourke’s thoughts on this link related to the comments you applaud.

http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2052212.smil

She states that she fully supports an 8 week turn around for asylum claims and also that her constituents are deeply scathing on the issue of an amnesty for any asylum seekers (even the ones she ACTUALLY refers to - here more than FOUR YEARS).

And I don’t apologise for accusing anti racists (such as RAR fundamentalists) of racism. Their fixation on black people is too pronounced and too laboured to be anything other than a creed, that fails to look beyond skin colour, as a measure of a persons worth.

Some are simply more equal than others.

Enjoy your day at the GPO. All 5 or 6 of you.

by anti-fashion Sat Jun 18, 2005 07:54

I did check the links before posting, but had found them to be misleading vis-à-vis your climas. I found psudo’s explanation to where NTR was coming from to be likely, and it’s difficult to see how someone could misconstrue NTR’s meaning, however much they disagree with his/her sources. By your borrowed definition, this might make you a ‘liar’, but I think your vituperative rhetoric comes from the mists of rage rather than any deliberate effort to be untruthful about someone.

BTW dictionaries are written by huams, language like belief is not an absolute science, and no-one has a monopoly on meaning or truth. Only totalitarians make such claims. At any rate, your link’s definition (‘one that tells lies’) is tautological, and grammatically incorrect. The elaboration by Princeton University on the same page, merely added ‘repeatedly’ to what was already a continuous tense. All shite and blind alley. My contextual experiences of the word’s meaning are relevant to where I think you’re coming from.

Sherlock: “I fight racism on a socialist platform”.

Does that mean that it would be dishonest to have open borders without first abolishing capitalist control of the international labour market?
Is migration not a symptom of global inequality, not a solution?
How do you justify the economic argument for migration?
If you’re a statist socialist, how would parochial protectionism alleviate or contribute to global inequality?

Sherlock: “As for your liberal bullshit of learning from racists, tell that to ethnic minorities in this country”.

As someone who voted NO in the referendum last year, I think RAR did the NO camp great harm, and YOU should learn to at least understand where the 80% yes was coming from. The NOs decreased as RAR’s campaign went on throwing ‘racist’ left, right and centre. Compare this Irish Times
opinion poll from May 18/19, to the result on June 11th. Had RAR never existed, the NO vote might have been higher. People had concerns that were not racist, but were cowed by RAR’s intransigent ‘racist’ tack decided on from the outset. Can you learn from your strategic mistakes (my initial point), and can you learn to gauge honest opinion so that you can try to overturn it through engagement with the very people your socialist values would have you speak for? Or are you a fascist, who believes that anyone who doesn’t go along with your opinions is an idiot worthy of contempt?

BTW You ooze aggression. Are you sure your motivations don’t lie somewhere else? Instead of dealing with points made, as a rational socialist would be expected to do, you engage in labelling, villification of branding, thus debasing your cause to fitful rantings.

You can probably tell by my rejection of your would-be authority, that I’m an anarchist: if liberal means the right to free honest discussion, well then, I wouldn’t take it as an insult, despite your general prejorative tone about anyone who asks you a question.

Your campaign is on the road to nowehere if you continue to shout at and to bully people. That sorta stuff (politically) only works if you’ve got power. I’m glad you don’t, because, for one thing, I hate following orders, and react against them. I've no doubt i'd be for the camp or the gulag.

Audiences are not wooed by the flinging of dung.

by anti-fashion Sat Jun 18, 2005 08:00

I think the asylum process in this country is diplorable.

Not only do applicants have to wait far too long for results, but genuine (non-economic) applicants are at too great a risk of being rejected. Decisions seem to be arbitrary, and the arbitors have little or no knowledge of the geopolitical regions from which applicants are coming.

by Sherlock Holmes Sat Jun 18, 2005 13:11

Pseudo,

Another irrelvant comment, not one relevant point in it. RAR fight racism against all people not just those whose skin is black. It is you and your ilk who are fixated with skin colour.


Anti fash,

Pseudo is NTR, he has used several user names before beginning as Tony and then progressing from that after attacking the site.
The links showed that Pseudo as NTR did not say ONE TRUTH, NOT ONE TRUTH. Their was nothing posted their that was true. And yet you fid it truthful how strange. Could you please pont out where he was telling the truth?

According to you now, words can mean absolutely anything. That is a ridiculous claim to make. Black=white because someone thinks so. Ridiculous

As for the referendum, RAR were part of CARR, a broad group of individuals who were anarchists, marxists, liberals members of SF, the Greens, Labour, SP, SWP. Not once did CARR call someone a racist. NOT ONCE. Nor did anyone vote for the referendum because they thought they were being called racist.


Your last post proves that you are not an anarchist. Anarchists believe in open borders. Open borders means no asylum applications as people could move freely from one country to another. If you are an anarchist than Bertie Aherne is indeed a socialist.

by PseudoNom Sat Jun 18, 2005 13:28

(Another irrelvant comment, not one relevant point in it. RAR fight racism against all people not just those whose skin is black. It is you and your ilk who are fixated with skin colour.)

Please let me know, numerically, how many serious campaigns have RAR mounted for non African people?

Better, how many marchs to the Dail have RAR mounted, exclusively now, for non African people?

On the second question, I know it would take too long to list all the names, I will settle for one and the relevant details/date.

by in Sat Jun 18, 2005 15:32

I welcome them all. They have reinvigorated this country. We had become tired and unable to effectively challenge the status quo. The arrival of these 'new Irish' will give us a new lease of life.

by PseudoNom Sat Jun 18, 2005 18:36

(This kind of sentiment would give colonialism a good name)

by kian Sat Jun 18, 2005 18:39

I think your (RAR) demonstration was a joke -150 people is all you could get, what does this tell you about the views of the majority of people on the asylum question? Personally I think the vast majority would not even entertain some of your brainless ideas.

There is no way on this earth that the MOJ or the government as a whole would agree to an amnesty, Mary O' Rourke would be your only real supporter (and she's a bit past it).
An amnesty sends out the message, if you can overwhelm the system, you can cheat your way in.

by anti-fashion Mon Jun 20, 2005 06:34

GENERAL RESPONSE TO GENERAL SHERLOCK

Harry Chapin had a song way back, that went ‘So many colours in the rainbow…’. In it, the teacher berates a child for not painting things the correct colour, or not accepting conventional definitions. The whole point of independent media for example, is to challenge conventional definitions of reality, or at least examine them without the ‘muck of ages’. This is not an argument for nihilism, but for freedom of honest expression.

You seem keen to put things in tautological boxes; a liar is a liar, black is black, and white is white – this is shaky ground coming from an anti-racist. Reality is quite different: in terms of skin-colour for example, none of us are really white or black, but mixtures of shades in between the two extremes of Newton’s spectrum.

The same is true of beliefs: ideal types are impossible in reality. Strictly speaking, capitalism aims for the fallacy of perfect competition, so what we have today more resembles corporatism. There’s even some socialist elements extant (libraries, the fire brigade), but these are ever under threat. Even capitalists may have socialist beliefs, even just for practical reasons of preventing revolution (the setting up of the British Welfare State after the Bevin Report in 1942 under a Conservative Prime Minister). The pettis bourgeoisie may believe in free health-care and free state-run education, but are beguiled by accumulation of wealth and control of labour.

Socialists can have a capitalist outlook in some regards (Tito and Castro, or those who believe that common ownership of the means of production doesn’t extend to democratic economic planning in relation to consumer-goods or confectionary etc.). Socialists can be anarchists in that they believe in a non-hierarchical state apparatus to facilitate decision-making over shifting geographical areas, and an anarchist can be a capitalist (e.g., US libertarians) somehow believing that all government is bad, but unfettered capital is good.

So, perhaps you’ll understand my annoyance at linguistic dictatorship. It is simple-minded, tyrannical and stifles honest debate. Furthermore, your consistent misreading of posts and convenient avoidance of questions (evidenced in this thread) only confirm for me the empty delusions at the core of absolutism and SHOUTING fanaticism.

MORE SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO THE CnC OF SLEUTHS

1. Sherlock: “Your last post proves that you are not an anarchist. Anarchists believe in open borders…”

There are many levels or layers of meaning, depending on the context. Anarchists in Ireland today are an example of this. For practical reasons, they might have to work in areas not of their choosing; they must ask money for their work (quite often); they make work for the government even, and pay a mortgage with that wage.

Most anarchists try to act on pragmatic strategies to subvert the system and improve society by creating new free spaces. I believe in this, rather than the big bang theory of Revolution. Even the big bangs are rooted in the everyday; BUT they always betray their roots.

Ascending from deep to shallow levels of meaning, I have problems with the political asylum system because:
• It’s a strange world we live in that has borders. The nation-state is a secular Church constructed by capitalists/corporatists for reasons of mass-mobilisation and delusion. People should be able to travel as they please in the world (not using jet-fuel), without corporate or political influence on their plans.
• the REASONS for or CAUSES of political refugees in the first place are disturbing and abhorrent. In supporting global inequalities and corporatist economics, I think the Irish government are complicit in this.
• People genuinely fleeing political persecution are not guaranteed to be admitted via the asylum process, and they have to wait too long.

On the shallowest, every-day level, I’m glad there’s a political asylum system because the needs of political victims can be prioritised (supposedly). Political asylum is no more a solution to repression throughout the world, than is open borders to economic exploitation.

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

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

The trade, aid and debt campaigns of Comhlámh and Make Poverty History are a start in the right direction. If successful, people will come here, not for survival or mercenary reasons, but because they really want to (if we’re lucky). I’d like the ‘new Irish’ to be here for reasons other than the world economic and political order. I have the same cosmetic appreciation of the new Irish, culturally speaking of course, and I would consider many to be friends.. That should not stop us from discussing the bigger picture.


2. Sherlock: “According to you now, words can mean absolutely anything. That is a ridiculous claim to make. Black=white because someone thinks so. Ridiculous”.

No! I didn’t quite claim that. I did try to make the point that sometimes, the words people use say as much if not more about them and where they’re coming from, than any verity intrinsic to the word itself. Like ‘liar’, the ‘n’ word was ubiquitous 100 years ago, and people would’ve laughed if you challenged its validity. Now we know the ‘n’ word says more about the speaker than the person being spoken of (but its meaning is also subject to change according to context).

Language is one of the last institutions still used and defined by all of us, relatively equally. Dictionaries can sometimes be a useful guide, but we don’t need someone from Princeton giving a definitive, universal, tautological meaning to an infantile word.

Nothing has meaning without context. For instance, 2+2=4 means nothing unless you give it context. A word can mean different things to different people, or even different things to the same person depending on the context. Most sentences are vague, let alone individual words, and they depend on sympathetic readings for meaningful communication to transpire.

So, rather than call your assertion a lie, I prefer to think you attribute bad characteristics to people who disagree with you, and even believe your subsequent misreading.



3. Sherlock: “Not once did CARR call someone a racist. NOT ONCE. Nor did anyone vote for the referendum because they thought they were being called racist”.

As you know, I made no mention of CARR.
The designation ‘racist referendum’ first appeared on this site on March 15th, 2004, in an article by a member of RAR. The dye was cast before the wording was ever known.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63843&search_text=racist%20referendum&results_offset=30
‘Racist referendum’ implies that those who vote for it are in some way racist, and defines any other reasons for voting YES out of existence. Was moral intimidation not part of the strategy? [rhetorical question].
Opinion polls suggest that NO-support diminished by 20% during the last three weeks of the campaign, and that most NO-party voters voted YES or abstained. In Dublin, NO parties got 55% of the vote, but almost 80% voted YES.
but there’s no point in blaming CARR for the ‘racist referendum’ strategy. what happened to collective responsibility? More importantly, can you say that you learnt any lessons from the campaign, since it seemed to have the opposite effect than that intended.

As for calling people racist, you’ve done so several times on this thread alone, and each accusation has been unsubstantiated, not even in terms of your favourite defining tool.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racist


4. As for NTR, no-one, not even the hhhmmmmmm! commentator can be certain of identity, but I don’t care; I believe that the message is more important than the messenger. There are no saints, and an argument or proposal should stand on its merits alone, without the distraction of abusive or even iconoclastic branding.

NTR/Pseudo’s ‘lies’ were to say that “the relevant Embassies, Amnesty International, the UN High Commisioner for Refugees, the High Court, the Irish Government etc etc having thoroughly and meticulously investigated the claim [Kate Bamidele’s claim for political asylum], at great expense, know slightly more than RAR about this matter.”

He appears to have based this observation on a Sunday Business Post article, and I assume, the belief that Irish immigration officials are trained by the UNHCR.

This is tedious, but lies about people being ‘liars’…oh!...deliberate misreading…weary on it, and weary oh!

I’m no-one’s apologist; I just got involved to say that RAR do their cause no favours by appealing to emotion at the exclusion of evidence, and of the bigger causal picture. Your answer was emotive abuse…did you understand my questions at all?
You’ve not attempted to answer anything I’ve put a question mark to.


Any self-funded campaign that can muster 150 to a demo, as RAR did on Saturday, should be congratulated. I’m of the one-human-race point-of-view, but that RAR stuff don’t do nothin’ for me. Apart from that, designated days lack spontaneity, and there’s something too ordered or regimented about them.

CONCLUSION

Like your name-sake, your powers of observation are impaired by prejudice. He was pro-Empire, and most probably, racist.

RAR doesn’t do it for me – or, more accurately, I’ve yet to be convinced by rational as opposed to emotive argument.

by anti-fashion Mon Jun 20, 2005 08:06

last line should read - Rational, as opposed to emotional argument is needed from them.

Just thought i'd get in before the cheap shots.

by dubliner Mon Jun 20, 2005 09:54

" welcome them all. They have reinvigorated this country. We had become tired and unable to effectively challenge the status quo. The arrival of these 'new Irish' will give us a new lease of life."


In what way have immigrants "reinvigorated this country"? Surely they are just the same as any other people and have the same proportion of geniuses, chancers, dullards, criminals, eijits etc as the existing population. It is naive to beleive that "they" are any more or less likely to contribute anything of value than the rest of us. And its a silly argument in support of whatever point you are trying to make.

by Bendy wendy wordy wordies Mon Jun 20, 2005 17:44

CARR's name was voted on at two different meetings. It was a tactical decision. In the RTE opinion poll there was no percentage given to people voting Yes because of the name of CARR. CARR spent €7,000 on the campaign the PD's spent €50,000 and FF spent €250,000 - €300,000. The govt. parties were able to have A1 posters and FF sent a full colour leaflet to every house in the State. Carr did not have anywhere near those resources. I was involved with CARR, but I am not involved in RAR.

You are indeed a very stange anarchist. According to you and your beliefs, words can mean what the person using them wants them to mean, and an ideology only means what that individual person wants it to mean. I've never heard of an anarchist who believes in a "state apparatus to facilitate decision-making over shifting geographical areas".

Furthermore in the link that Sherlock put up their was not one mention of Kate Bamidile or the Sunday Business Post. NTR's post made no reference to it either, it seems you are attempting to put a context on something that is not there. Also you stated " A liar is someone who says they have never lied." then went on after a link was put up to dictionary.com, to say that "language like belief is not an absolute science, and no-one has a monopoly on meaning or truth" in other words any word can mean anything.

by Anarchist Mon Jun 20, 2005 18:25

Here's a neat definition of Anarchism. Their are of course plenty more definitions out there.

"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

by Pseudonom Mon Jun 20, 2005 19:48

Groundhog Day?

by anti-fashion Tue Jun 21, 2005 07:41

Catholic Worker are anarchists who believe in the Church; and their activist record is second-to-none in the anarchist world.

US libertarians are anarchist who believe in capitalism.

I am an anarchist who believes in an accountable state (means of mass-decision making) where no-one has any more power than anyone else (‘no ruler’). There is no contradiction. Some call such a method of organising, a collective, and I understand why ‘state’ may have bad connotations with such a bad record. Unlike the first two groupings, I have neither faith in religion or capital.

Sometimes its hard to see the difference between the golden city as envisaged by socialists and that of anarchists. The difference is in how to get there. Socialists have parties with leaders, and provisional ‘authorities’ after the revolution or whatever. Anarchists tend to believe that the process is organic, and that the authoritarian nature (or otherwise) of a movement is more to be seen in its daily practice, than in any manifesto.

The agenda-led attitude of the Irish left sometimes disturbs me in this respect. It is important for the Irish left, that honest debates be kept alive on indymedia; otherwise, IL will continue to preach to the converted and hop on every trendy issue in all its simplistic glory.

No more simple-minded/absolutist definitions please. Anarchists probably won’t play follow-the-leader when it comes to defining who they are.

Ideology itself is difficult to define. Books could be written the subject and we’d still be none the wiser. With no respect for adhering to the rules of ideological Ps and Qs, I espouse the ‘think for yourself’ school of motorin’.

British anarchist Dave Douglas (Red Dan) speaks of ‘wig-wam anarchists’ – those who put ideology above reality. Is there one Irish anarchist who does not participate in the current state-capital order? Everyone does to some extent, even if only for pragmatic reasons.

Another example of ‘levels’ is the anarchist who looks at a tax-return form, knowing that there should be no taxes, but on a more immediate level, wonders why they can’t use larger print – he might even write a letter to seek reform in this small matter, without betraying his over-arching principle.

To begin with, language is necessarily short-hand for the ineffable, so we needn’t debase it further by narrowing words to one meaning only. I will not be defined out of existence by either existing or would-be establishments.

by anti-fashion Tue Jun 21, 2005 07:47

Bendy

“A liar is someone who says they have never lied…” [dots shouted if possible].
sorry it went over your head, but that was an attempt at irony and at elucidating the problem of/with tautological definitions. Your misreading shows the pit-falls of literalness, or the prejudice in your reading, or perhaps other things – you might suggest.

Here’s the link which was the subject of NTR’s contributions to the thread so thoughtfully introduced to me by Sherlock on the pretext that pseudo/NTR is a ‘liar’. The context is not imagined, but Bendy’s reading was certainly selective.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/12/12/story928.asp
Sunday Business Post, December 12, 2004 - Edited by Pat Leahy

Simplistic definitions are misleading: tautological definitions are useless. If you won’t understand such a basic concept of communication, words might as well mean anything; but, let me draw an inference from it that might help to illustrate the point.

Slogans are based on the assumption that people are too dim-witted to deal with complexity.

You’ve spoken for yourself in this regard.

By tarring things you don’t understand as gobbledygook (implied in your name), you display the sort of cerebral laziness that makes media moguls happy, and the sort of attitude that is fodder for right-wing causes.

Black-white, them-us worldviews alienate the intellect from complex reality. CARR’s ‘tactical’ use of a loaded word still stifles free expression around the issue of immigration today, so fearful are people of being branded RACIST. Such rhetorical bullying, however tactical, is the hall-mark of totalitarianism.

Another side-effect of the tactical use of ‘racist’ was to heighten fear and tension within migrant groups themselves. Many were angered and upset after the referendum, thinking that Irish people had voted against non-Irish on a racial basis – the handy-work of McDowell, helped by CARR.

The referendum was designed to increase votes for FF/PD and I publicly spoke out against it on those grounds. I concede that FF/PD grossly outspent you in the referendum, but they also treat the electorate like proles (maybe you both have got a point…eh). Money for more posters and slogans is hardly the future of democracy. If NO didn’t get equal space in the media where it mattered, there should be a High Court challenge to the result. No case imminent I expect.

Tactically, all sides got it wrong – the right-wing parties lost votes, the left-wing parties misread their electorate, and RAR as part of CARR only succeeded in preaching to the converted.

RAR’s stance, especially on indymedia where they are asked questions, is emotive (normally aggressive to questioners) and short on facts. In my first post, I suggested a change of PR strategy away from negativity and stone-walling. I understand why a RAR-member would be defensive at such comments, but they were a challenge, not an attack.

Your use of the word ‘strange’ seemed to be critical. If you’ve no frame of reference for something, should you not be curious, or would you prefer to treat anything different as untrustworthy?

by Residents Against Racism Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:57

Slogans are a form of concision. They are not made on the assumption that people are too dim witted to deal with complexity. The media is not where it matters, you have an incredible belief in the corporate media if you do. The media is an important factor but it is not the most important. What matters most is knocking on doors and distributing leaflets in communities. Sinn Fein are an excellent example to use in this regard. The corporate media constantly hammer SF. However SF's vote continues to grow, this is down to activisim on the ground. Overwhelming financial resources from one side of a referendum campaign is not a democratic referendum. A more democratic way would be to have both sides funded equally so that it would be reasoned arguments that would convince the electorate what way to vote. CARR's reach did not extend the length and breadth of the country. FF and the PD's between them had posters the length and breadth of the country, and leaflets were distributed to every house in the country by them.

CARR was a broad group. It's membership was open to all. It was a democratic organisation and as such you could have joined the campaign and been involved in that process. You did not. You said that you spoke out in public during the campaign, in what capacity was this?.

CARR did not call anyone racist. What was said was that the referendum itself was racist and it's effect would be racist. This analysis is correct as was the prediction of increased racism due to the referendum. This was never in doubt, Philip Watt of the NCCRI announced during the course of the campaign that racist attacks increased during the course of the referendum, especially against pregnant immigrants.

As for our PR, our decisions are made democratically, our meetings are open to all. If you have critcisms you can come down to our meetings and try to change them. We will answer questions to people who don't hide their identity. We have no problem with an open debate. We have a stall in Dublin's city centre every saturday where people ask us questions. Our meetings are open for people to come and ask us questions, and we also participate in debates on the radio and public meetings throughout the country. Hiding behind pseudonoms because they don't have the courage in their convictions is an issue for those trolls that consistently deal in untruths on this issue.

by PseudoNom Tue Jun 21, 2005 19:21

Buying referendums debunked:


Analysis - The Nice treaty vote:


First time:

32.9% of 2.9 million registered voters. Of these, 46% voted yes, and 54% voted no.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1376379.stm


The imbalance was clearest in the funding given to each side. The Yes probably spent 20 times more than the No: its total expenditure was reportedly at least €1.68 million.[1] Against this, the No campaign spent approximately €170,500. The Yes figure included the following expenditure: Fianna Fáil, the governing party, spent €500,000[2]; IBEC, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, €500,000; Fine Gael, the opposition party, spent €150,000, also for a Yes; the Progressive Democrats, a governing party, spent €125,000; The Irish Alliance for Europe, €100,000; the Irish Farmers’ Association, €150,000; the International Financial Services Centre, €25,000; the Labour Party €25,000; the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, €100,000. On top of this, the Government of Ireland spent €750,000 and Irish Euro MP, Pat Cox, president of the European Parliament, spent c. €80,000 on a Yes campaign bus.


By contrast, the “No to Nice” campaign spent no more than € 120,000.


http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?ChapterID=580&CountryID=37&ReportID=188&keyword=


The official result of the second Nice referendum was 62.89% Yes, 37.11% No on a turnout of 49.47%

http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?ChapterID=581&CountryID=37&ReportID=188&keyword=

It is noteworthy that the numbers voting NO remained almost unchanged. Turnout won the 2nd vote.


My point is simple, if expenditure was the deciding factor, the Yes vote should have run away with the vote twice. Compare and contrast with the massive 80% first time endorsement for the Citizenship referendum with a turnout, that beat both Nice votes (33 & 49 respectively) at a massive 60% and your theory is demolished.


To reduce the result of the Citizenship referendum to one of expenditure over subtance is simply wishful thinking.

by Kian Tue Jun 21, 2005 23:40

Evening,

There is no way that the No vote could have won the Citizenship referendum, the people were aware of the abuse Nigerian's etc were carrying out.

We didn't need the advertising to tell us anything, all we needed were the arguements of both sides. We listened, and acted to stop the abuse of Irish Citizenship. The yes margin was 80%, that is all that matters.

by anti-fashion Wed Jun 22, 2005 09:21

Pseudonyms and Debate in this forum

The dearth of personal names on this thread has already been discussed. Although the individual who wrote under RAR may have been mandated, he/she is still anonymous under the RAR banner in this context. I prefer it that way: I have nothing but admiration and respect for the people of RAR I’ve actually met, and I’m sure they’re no exception.

My criticisms/questions of RAR have been taken personally by an anonymous RAR-member earlier on, and I find it easier to handle the impugning of my character (integrity and wit) if I think it’s aimed at what I say, rather than at me personally, or who they think I am. Much of the Irish Left has learnt the right-wing trick of confusing the medium with the message, and I don’t wish to fall foul of their branding or petty politicking.

Nor are your allegations of trolling and lies sufficient blandishments to entice me to accept the rancorous approbation under my official label. If you adjudge considered and honest points to be ‘trolling’ and ‘untruths’ on the basis that you disagree, then you’re merely engaging in the ‘strange’ mockery of difference indulged in by the anti-racist [heebie jeebie] earlier.

I look forward to the day when I can post ‘off-centre’ points under my birth-cert name (If I wish), but the activist circle in Ireland is too small and shallow for that right now. I wait and work in hope, and on indymedia.ie, I trust the editors’ discretion. I did speak (literally) in public against the referendum on more than one occasion, but the courage of my convictions in questioning the left in this domain, is related to my expectation of vilification by those I’d like to work with (i.e., a low:high ratio).

This is an open forum where ‘outsiders’ can find out more about RAR, and since no organization is immune to external factors, it could treat such engagements positively. That is what I mean by PR.


OTHER ISSUES

RAR’s last posting is an improvement on the yaboo sucks style, but I found your justification for slogans to be somewhat lacking. Concision for whom?...Why? Slogans are a good friend of branding, but no friend of debate. For placard-speak to be mirrored in an open forum like this where you’ve time to consider comments, is what I really found surprising.

Remember Orwell’s “Four legs good, two legs bad…”, well I saw a placard outside the Dial once which read “NO TO PEDOFILES AND RACISTS”. On reflection, I thought it must be talking about the government (NCCRI notwithstanding) – and the protest was related to abuse in state institutions – but when I asked, no-one was quite sure, and someone was ordered to put it away. It appears that ‘racism’ was de rigueur in April 2004, and could be borrowed as a rhetorical device by the worthiest of causes.

So, whereas the referendum encouraged racist/anti-immigrant violence by some sectors;, the above and other experiences lead me to believe that CARR’s composites caused some people to see racism where it did not exist (i.e., everywhere):

The referendum was a cynical ploy, and the amendment is meaningless, but the moral panic on the left re racism since 1998 is unfounded. The effect of the over-use of the word ‘racism’ has been to stifle debate around global migration issues in Ireland. Building will continue till the hole country is concrete and golf-courses, however long it takes.

We need to question whether we want that sort of economic growth. Slovakia is now giving grants to its 17% unemployed population to find work in neighboring countries: that’s not good enough. The west cripples its former empires with debt, tariffs and miserly aid/reparations – shameful. Filipino health system is short of nurses. They export their young. There is no romanticising forced economic migration, not even by those who say the ‘new Irish’ are aesthetically pleasing.

The government’s immigration policy is insincere, poorist, unworkable, and a symptom of keeping the exploitation going, at home and globally; but as for calling people racist and on the ‘racist referendum’ and implication thereof, there’s no point in repeating what I said as anti-fahsion - Monday, Jun 20 2005, 5:34am. (3.).

RAR: “What matters most is knocking on doors and distributing leaflets in communities.”

Like anarchists and the hierarchical state, few if any of us can escape the mass-media. It deserves a good hacking and restructuring, but it has agenda-setting powers, even over us. I reckon SF-voters, generally, don’t even entertain the drivel that passes for political programmes in the mass media, but I suspect it plays a part in their consumption habits. I think SF will reach a plateau, and then media will matter once more as they compete for the middle class vote.

I completely agree with you on the equal spending point. Posters are unsightly and don’t add much to reasoned debate, but distribution of leaflets is important – even if not as much as the media.

by Residents Against Racism Wed Jun 22, 2005 13:00

Anti fash,

Slogans are used for posters, placards and the front of leaflets. You can not put up a debate on a poster as people, generally, will not stop to read the points. The points are put in the leaflet itslef. I have seen it tried before in an election were the candidate put his manifesto on his poster. His campaign was a disaster. Generally posters are put up on main thoroughfares where pedestrians, and individuals using other forms of transport, pass by with no time (sometimes no desire) to stop and read, this is one of the reasons why concision is used. Posters don't add to the debate but they are effective and that is the reality of things.

When you knock on a persons door you deal directly with their concerns and issues. It also gives them a chance to question you and validate or invalidate their own prejudices concerning the issues. The media does not have the same impact. A sizeable chunk of the media were against the referendum. This had little impact. The reasons people voted for the referendum (in the RTE exit poll) were of major concern. They are being addressed by anti racist groups across the country and recent opinion polls have been much more favourable. Their is still a lot more work to do, but anti racist groups are increasingly becoming better at dealing with the challenge of fighting racism.

Equal finances for each side of the referendum campaign is the only fair way to proceed. As you can see from my previous post I never claimed that this was the overarching factor in it. It is beyond doubt that €7,000 spent on a campaign has very little impact compared to €170,000 in the Nice campaign. The materials you can buy for €7,000 as compared to €170,000 are incomparable. CARR for the resources that was had, produced and distributed beyond the norm. The only truly democratic way to have a referendum would be equal funding.

by PseudoNom Wed Jun 22, 2005 19:58

Fundamentally, the referendum asked people if they wanted Government to legislate on criteria for citizenship and specified a change that was required.

The people voted yes.

If RAR or any other lobby group or political party wishes to amend the rules pertaining to citizenship, they now can. Heretofore, they could not.

A democratic mandate is all that is required.

Oddly, I don't see RAR or any political party looking to do this, or proposing changes that they believe people may want - in their manifestos.

Why?

by Kian Thu Jun 23, 2005 00:21

The answer is:

There is no way the vast majority of Irish people would want another referendum. Since the Yes vote won by such a margin, it would be pointless for ultra left wingers to try and change it.

The Citizenship referendum is having the desired results.

by PseudoNom Sat Jun 25, 2005 02:00

(It was a kinda rhetorical question)

by anti-fashion Sat Jun 25, 2005 07:00

Skin Deep

Media strategy is a bit clearer now – that you prefer the Sinn Féin model of mobilisation. It is more grassroots than top-down (unlike SF party structure).

However, questions asked, in an attempt to see behind or beyond RAR’s slogans, were either ignored or met with aggression. I appreciate the lack of abuse in your last comment, but if your members show the same intransigence, venom and evasiveness on the doorsteps as they’ve shown on this thread, then money may be the least of your problems.

‘anti-fash’ [against fash-type arguments] is a comment on the skin-deep nature of RAR’s position, not an essentialist claim about the individuals making these arguments.

You’ve demonstrated a propensity to personalize (through demonisation or hagiography), and a disinclination to think beyond immediate emotions to wider causes and effects.

I believe your labeling 'racist referendum' was skin-deep, but your selective answering of questions also suggests a skin-deep view of racism itself. An analysis of what racism actually is, would probably require a new article; I might have a go at it, but I’d equally like to see RAR’s ideas on the matter. Stereotypes, myths and simplifications are pit-falls to watch out for – they belong on the far right or in children’s fairytales.

BTW: The above reference to ‘liberal bullshit…Irish Times…’ is not so far removed from the language of those on the far right; those who use personal labels like ‘pinko lefty’ and ‘do-gooder’.

‘anti-fashion’ was a comment on the trendy left who follow the zeitgeist without thinking to had or too honestly on the subject.

I changed because I thought the first might have been provocative, but if you think the anti-fash is more apt, let me know – can’t promise anything, ‘coz I’d prefer something positive.

by PseudoNom Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:35

For God's sake man, how many times do you have to be told where the stall is!

by anti-fashion Sun Jun 26, 2005 05:39

In fact, no specific time or place was given here for RAR's stalls. Dublin city's a big enough area, and saturday's as long as any other day.

I don't mind, because like most people in the country, Saturday's in Dublin City Centre don't happen often for me.

Anyway, this forum is better suited to reasoned, public/democratic,recorded, ideas-based, non-branding/emotive discussion by anyone. A discussion at a stall would be a lovely setting, but extempore communication fathoms different depths.

Psudo, what's your opinion on global inequalities of labour and capital? What do you see are the most optimal strategies of change?

Or, is there one justification for the status quo that does not permanently marginalise the world's majority?

If RAR has borrowed, Pseudo's psudo, then the respite will be short-lived. This is about a better understanding of realities, not rhetorical victory.

by PseudoNom Mon Jun 27, 2005 03:28

(If RAR has borrowed, Pseudo's psudo, then the respite will be short-lived.)



Discuss.

by pat c Sun Dec 04, 2005 16:16

i'm getting tired of debating with you on several threads. why not stick to the one name?

might i ask if you believe that illegal irish economic immigrants in the US should be deported?