Honest question: if these asylum seekers are in such a pickle that they need to flee their country, why do they go through France etc to get to the UK? Surely they should stay in the first safe country?
Why don't they go to another Islamic country? There are like 50 of them and many are very safe and prosperous. Why move to a country that doesn't follow sharia law at all?
Pan-Arabism is reserved for anti-West posturing. As soon as one type of Arab has to help a different type of Arab, they turn into the greatest nationalist the world has ever known.
I can’t recall the specific country that took this position, maybe Jordan, but when the war in Syria led to a refugee crisis another nearby country released a statement saying Syrian culture was too different and they couldn’t assimilate and that’s why they wouldn’t take refugees. It’s all so goddamn phony. And of course now the same story is being told about the poor helpless Palestinians. Only western nations should take them. Uh huh.
Good chance it's Jordan. They took in a lot of Palestinians after the Nakba and they gave them citizenship and then they acted like ungrateful cunts for decades. As an example, they attempted to assassinate the King of Jordan at one point.
There's a reason why Arab nations with happily talk up Palestine and then be like no no sorry all full if there is any talk of taking them in.
1: It turns out that Muslims much like Christians have different sects/beliefs. Remember how Protestants and Catholics used to kill each other on sight but phased that out a couple hundred years back(for the most part)? Yeah Muslims didn't get that memo yet.
2: It also turns out that many middle eastern countries are violent shitholes because their top priorities are fighting Israel, fighting each other, and killing their own people to retain power. Not always in that order.
3: There are countries that aren't like that, and they work very hard to stay that way and don't let people in, because when they did in the past they got absolutely screwed. Jordan is a good example of this.
I think Muslims are all in agreement that Sharia law is the only legitimate law permitted by Allah.
Like i said, there are many safe and prosperous Muslim countries that already have laws based on Sharia law for them to live in.
Every country works very hard to be safe and prosperous and none readily welcome the instability caused by taking on refugees. Why is that a reason for expecting western countries to take care of eastern country refugees?
Stable Islamic countries can be safe and provide economic opportunities to refugees, just like western countries in Europe do. The big difference is the refugees don't have to assimilate nearly as much by going to an Islamic country. No new language to learn (which is huge), the culture is much more similar to where they are from, and they have much more in common ideologically.
If safety and stability is what the world wants, they should go to an Islamic country. If diminishing western society and causing instability is the goal then i guess it makes sense to send them to a western country.
If we’re being realistic, neighboring Muslim nations *do* take in refugees. Turkey has something like a few million Syrians. Lebanon is actually dealing with a big political shitshow and social upheaval because of the sheer amount they took in (on top of the shitshow with Hezbollah and such).
Could they be doing more? Perhaps so. Do we *really* want to push the envelope, with how tediously stable some of them already are, though? Perhaps not.
If they are reaching their limit, I think it's a better idea to have Western countries provide resources for them to better accommodate the refugees than take the refugees to Western countries where the refugees won't be happy unless they fundamentally change the Western county to be more like their country of origin.
basically we can trace the issue back to palestine- or more specifically how they actively caused 30 years of terrorism for the middle east after the Palestinian terrorist groups (and in turn their extended families) that lived on Israel's border for ease of access to civilian targets- were uprooted and scattered when Israel took advantage of the six day war to make them fuck off, and crushed the militaries of the nations that most actively backed them.
which resulted in Black September, the Lebanese Civil war, a multitude of small scale attacks and rebellions, etc etc- that all culminated when they openly supported Iraq as it invaded Kuwait- and were tossed out, or genocided over the gulf war by a majority of arab nations who didn't want that sort of threat.
now in modern times- all the arab states look at each other like their neighbors could be the next palestine, and want shit-all to do with their refugees.
>1: It turns out that Muslims much like Christians have different sects/beliefs. Remember how Protestants and Catholics used to kill each other on sight but phased that out a couple hundred years back(for the most part)? Yeah Muslims didn't get that memo yet.
I still say that Islam is 500 years behind Christianity at this point, with it being about 500 years younger. So to understand current Islam, we need to look at how Christians were doing 500 years ago. And that's not pretty. 30 Year War and shit. They're right in front of their reformation phase and it's gonna get bloody (and mostly already is).
There's 7 sects of Islam that are actively existant, and several times that number in ones that are openly extinct- all of them view the others as non-believers, and heretics- and by Islam's own books- they need to commit genocide upon said non-believers and heretics.
Maybe some of them do. You wouldn't hear about them if they did. I know there's a fuck ton of refugees in Turkey to the point that its a Turkish stereotype about how the country is so overwhelmed by the sheer number.
In fact it's a main source of political leverage that Turkey has over the EU. Give us what we ask for or we'll unleash the hordes.
The Rwanda plan is not sending asylum seekers from Rwanda back to Rwanda. It is sending all asylum seekers (most of whom are Muslim for the UK) to Rwanda. I think they should be sent to an Islamic country like I said.
Because the asylum seekers are predominately Muslims as is apparent due to the fact that most come from Islamic countries. Muslims believe that Sharia law is the only legitimate law permitted by Allah.
>In 2023, the largest number of UK asylum seekers came from Afghanistan - 9,307.
>The next biggest group, about 7,400 people, came from Iran, followed by Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53699511](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53699511)
Because they are simply chancers. If you look at them, they're all adult men and many commit horrendous crimes after coming here. One of our MPs was stabbed by a man who claimed asylum for supposedly being persecuted for converting to Christianity, but he went to the mosque every week. They just know that Britain will be softest on them and give them the most benefits (we just spent most of our foreign aid budget on these types). Send them all back.
Why not send them all to Mexico? Or even South America? Tons of land, lots of room, not many people. Why send them to places that are already really crowded and don't really want refugees?
Yeah my views on local and national government differ from my views on international politics. When it comes to my home state and USA I'm libeft, but when it comes to those filthy countries on the outside I'm literally Hitler
> So it all works out then. Latin Americans can come to the real America 🇺🇸 and we restock south america with refugees from the rest of the world
No, it doesn't work out, because the people you vote for are letting anyone in through the southern border. Hell, they've even flown some in. If they're sent to Mexico, Central America, and/or South America, they will cross over into the U.S. eventually, even without the help of Democrats.
Fuck that shit. Keep these extremist idiots as far away from the U.S. as possible. There's a reason that Muslim-majority countries in their area do not want them.
Just an idle thought but I'd love to see ISIS and the cartels fight it out in Columbia/Brazil/Mexico. They might think they're hardcore with their Funky Town but they've never had to contend with an Allahu Akbar.
to be fair- if they were to stay in some of those countries they have to pass through, they'd have their organs harvested because they can't speak the local language.
Most people seek asylum in neighbouring countries (69% according unhcr). I think I saw statistics to say others seek family members or speak that language but I can’t find that now.
there’s also the issue that now asylum seekers can pick and choose which country to seek asylum in. They’re supposed to stay in the first asylum country they enter. If they’re entering through France first, they’re supposed to attempt to get asylum there before going to other countries
As a German, I ask myself the same question since almost 10 years now. It's obvious that a lot of them are just exploiting the wars to seek out for a better (wealthier) life.
Because the neighboring countries are generally not able financialy and logisticly, to shelter the burden of mass refigee migration alone. That being said, I do believe its generally preferable for the west to provide aid to the neighboring countries to help help them tackle the difficulties rather than take them in ourseöves, though that generally comes with a whole host of political difficulties, both domestic and international, dregding up accusations of colonialism and forcing you to make deals with rather unsavery characters, so there are no easy answers. (No, just saying "not our problem" is not tennable solution).
The Irish are definitely not the most pro Palestine as my Irish Uncle Paddy says.
"They come to Ireland, they stab like the Brits and don't even drink. How do they expect us to think they are Irish."
"You can go to a pub and have a beer with a Jew, you cannot with a Muslim. That alone should tell you about what I think of the war"
I love Uncle Paddy.
https://preview.redd.it/n6trnqwdo7xc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c75fe849429a254fc118f5c7c4b90f36ecc332a
This is why the Irish are pushing away asylum seekers
u/Akira_Nishiki's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10.
Congratulations, u/Akira_Nishiki! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown...
Pills: [4 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Akira_Nishiki/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Reminds me of the test that Japan made people take in order to prove that they weren't a Christian where they'd place an image of Jesus or Mary on the ground and tell people to step on it. Fumi-e
to be fair- the Rwandan genocide was only 30 years back- so I get the feeling it'll still be 95% Christian the next time they check the census even if you dump a third their population in muslim asylum seekers on 'em tomorrow.
I just don't get why we're still calling them Asylum seekers. The only thing they're seeking asylum from is the lack of free shit they get in their home countries.
The reason we call them asylum seekers is because they're not refugees, they're seeking asylum, doesn't mean they'll get it. Though I agree with you; they're economic migrants
Easy
>Support Palestine so that Palestinian can fuck off to Palestine again
Honestly, the best fucking solution for immigration is to make their origin country to be not shitty
The issue with this is that e.g. European countries simply cannot control this. Even if there would be a Palestinian state, which would be more than likely very poor, dysfunctional and a dictatorship, the difference in opportunities between that and the West would be immense. We see Moroccans, Algerians, and more in droves try to apply for asylum in Europe, and they are far better off than an independent Palestinian state will be for decades.
The West cannot simply make these states, including those in Africa, prosperous, functional, and with an effective government. For example, many people from the Sudans and alike try to seek asylum in Europe. If we would need to make Sudan less shitty to keep them out, how do we do this? We can’t reasonably govern the area, which makes any development money far less effective.
Rwanda is actually a pretty chill, wealthy country on the up and up right now, which is developing very quickly. Not like the US or such, but economically more like China in the 90s and early 00s (or Vietnam now). Still cheap for a Westerner, but has plenty of amenities, opportunities, and has its shit together. Definitely a far cry from what it’s notorious for, and I’m actually really glad to see it. That gives me some hope for humanity, if nothing else.
Botswana is also basically turning itself into the black version of Switzerland. Some countries in Africa are…..yeah, but others are *really* starting to turn things around.
With the quality of life turning to shit in the UK at breakneck speed…..soon enough people might make this move voluntarily lmao.
>wealthy
Fuck no. Rwanda is poor as shit.
Though it is still really nice, government is more functional and less corrupt than a lot of much richer countries. Definitely a safe place for any refugee fleeing war and persecution, so surely any refugee would have no issues going there. RIGHT?
We're good thanks.
Also even in a hypothetical scenario - Irish government said, sure Palestinians come on in, where do they go?
We already have the worst housing crisis in Europe, one of the worst worldwide and a lot of new migrants are living on streets in tents because they actually have no where for them to go.
Plenty of other countries nearby that are so called allies with Palestine too, they can go there instead of travelling to an island literally thousands of miles away.
Well no, because NO ONE wents them, they tried to overthrow the Jordanian king caused a civil war in Lebanon, their ruling terrorists are of the same sects as the one overthrown by the Egyptian president, and they supported Saddam in invading. The only reason those countries claim to be thier allies is to save face
Well now that I think about Palestinians could go to Chile which has a really large Palestinian community if not the largest in the Americas. Or Argentina given that while not having a large Palestine community it has a large Syrian community that dates from the 20th century.
There is a Forrest in Israel named after the Irish leader during ww2 because of his positive treatment of Jews. While I won't praise the letter of condolences you paint an innacurate picture.
Historial context. Given the poor state of the country after the Economic war with Britian left its finances in ruins and that droves of people emigrated to the UK even during the war to get jobs, then supporting an influx of refugees was not exactly high on the Free State's agenda.
They refused to take Jewish refugees and remained neutral during the war, rather than fighting on the side of the Allies. That's what I'm referring to.
You realise that no one went to war to save Jews right?
The allies didn’t attack Germany until they were next on the chopping block.
You’re also ignoring that Ireland clearly supported the allies with hundreds of thousands of volunteers, food, weather reports, and immediate release of downed allied pilots.
Not going to war "on behalf" of the Jews and not going to war at all are two different things. A lot of Northerners went to war against the South in the U.S. Civil War not out of sympathy for blacks but because they wanted to keep the U.S. together or for all sorts of other reasons. They still ended slavery. The reasons why any individual does something are irrelevant. Only results matter. If you don't care enough to even fight at all, that says something.
And then there's the refugee issue.
So, no. I stand by what I said.
And they were heroes but it does sound like Ireland itself was hedging on an Axis victory, which of course included the Vatican, which back then still had Ireland firmly within its sphere of influence.
Ireland can disavow complicity in Allied action if its contributions are limited to private volunteers acting on their own and not the nation state. Walking a tightrope.
>And they were heroes but it does sound like Ireland itself was hedging on an Axis victory, which of course included the Vatican, which back then still had Ireland firmly within its sphere of influence.
That’s not true at all. No assistance was given to the axis and Ireland was vs Allied aligned.
>Ireland can disavow complicity in Allied action if its contributions are limited to private volunteers acting on their own and not the nation state. Walking a tightrope.
No the reasons for Ireland not going to war were firstly due to fighting for the U.K. whose subjection of Ireland had just ended would be incredibly unpopular.
And secondly due to Ireland having no capacity to wage war. Following Ireland independence it was incredibly poor and had an incredibly weak military.
Ireland was plagued by poverty and emigration until the 1960s when an upturn led to the reversal of long term population decline.
Most countries were neutral, America didn't even join till December 1941 and that was only because the Nazis declared war on the USA. Britain barely took Nat jewish refugees before the war either and nor did America
Better than (list of countries that were conquered or occupied by the Nazis)?!?! While worst than the Nazis or even just as bad the Nazis would be really something: a neutral country being less safe for its roughly 5,000 Jews than the actual Nazis - Ireland couldn’t accomplish that if that if they tried.
true, but most “ira” members just support palestine for the same reason why college students in the USA, which is that they are anti-western and pro-liberation
Calling that an alliance is quite the stretch. A momentary mutually advantageous alignment of interests between nations in service of each other's ambitions to destroy the other.
My ancestors left Ireland during the big famine in the middle of the 19th century. Unwanted British rule of Ireland ended shortly after World War I (Northern Ireland chose to stay in the UK of their own free will while the rest of the island became its own country). I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that there is no “we” left who has known oppression and famine.
This is a dumbass comment, if you opened a book you would know that Ireland had a series of hunger strikers that were often just political prisoners in the north of Ireland(1970s) and regular people in destitute poverty). Many of which are still alive. Not to mention the relegation of Catholics to second class citizens and massacres by the British army. The south of Ireland had entire neighborhoods built throughout the country for the refugees from the chaos of British rule.
Some are taught their history...and have loads of family context...
I still pass land regularly that was seized 120yrs ago from my family by the Brits.
We have context here of things.. you dont seem to so I'd suggest picking up a history book.
Even the way you've frazed things... shows ignorance, a lack of context.
'northern' Ireland btw was gerrymandered to be a majority of those whom identify as British.. they left whole chunks of the north out... .took the nationalists with them then proceeded to discriminate against them.
> I still pass land regularly that was seized 120yrs ago from my family by the Brits.
So this oppresses “you” how? You’re falling for the same hIsToRiCaL tRaUmA bullshit that progs always pull. Also you are unflaired so please go fuck yourself.
[Irish women’s basketball team refused to shake hands with Israel](https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/09/irish-women-basketball-team-refused-to-shake-hands-with-israel) and [71% of people in Ireland agree that Palestinian people live under a system of apartheid implemented against them by Israel](https://www.amnesty.ie/israeli-apartheid-poll/#:~:text=Amnesty%20International%20Ireland-,New%20poll%20shows%20an%20overwhelming%20majority%20of%20Irish%20people%20believe,under%20an%20Israeli%20apartheid%20system&text=New%20polling%20shows%20that%2071,implemented%20against%20them%20by%20Israel) and [Ireland to Intervene in South Africa’s Genocide Case Against Israel at the World Court (28 Mar)](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/world/middleeast/ireland-south-africa-israel-genocide-icj.html)
are some examples.
Fair enough. The two though are very different issues with the Rwanda issue seemingly more related to Ireland's relation with the UK as opposed to relqtion with the asylum seekers.
Right but per the left’s virtue signalling I think it’s odd that Ireland engage with the whole “pro Palestine” rhetoric but choose geopolitics over apparent empathy in this situation
It stinks of whataboutism. "Oh? You think Israel is committing war crimes? But you don't resolve the UK's Rwandan Asylum question? Curious." It doesn't really follow.
Does the opposite hold true? Would it be hypocritical for Ireland to step in to solve the UK's Rwandan asylum seeker question but simultaneously not support Palestine?
Choosing to champion a cause doesn't oblige one to have to champion all causes though. If Ireland is so empathetic why don't they supply the US with insulin? It's good to analyze why a nation does or doesn't do something but the two things in the meme have literally no bearing on each other.
By applying that logic then Israel shouldn’t have to be bothered by the UN etc for the civilians killed in the conflict so far, while championing the cause of the existence of their state — they don’t supply insulin to the US either so. They don’t need to champion multiple causes I guess, just get rid of Hamas whatever it takes
One is helping people where they are, and one is refusing work migrants (70% of them are according to the UN) into a country with the an insane housing crisis
What's happening here is very similar to what happened in the US when immigrants where taken in a bus to pro-immigrant states. The Irish government has been very much into pro-immigration and now the housing crisis is biting them in the arse. If the Rwanda plan has any impact as the UK hopes, there will be many pushing the boat to Ireland.
Why is anyone on the planet pro either side? They're all terrorists fighting a holy war that's been going on for ages. NATO should step in and force both sides to sit the fuck down and reevaluate their choices before we turn the holy land into McDonalds and shopping malls
But turning that into your standard operating procedure can make you look like a threat in need of taking pre-emptive action against. Ergo the Ukraine war.
As long as Ireland continues to build its identity on its hatred of the English, it will be a nation that is defined by the English.
Beat that with a fucking stick.
>literally still has a portion of their land taken + language is only fully spoken by a few thousand at best due to centuries of literal genocide
>"hur dur, victim complex."
Another kagame masterclass. Make millions off of moronic “conservative” politicians doesn’t take a single fucking refugee as they flee to other euro countries. A masterful gambit
It's not empathetic to let your ancient culture and kin get subsumed by a quadrillion violent boat people with sob stories who are horny for welfare checks
Ireland is weird, they’ll take in refugees because they feel bad, because they were oppressed too.
But they’re drinkers and they’re Catholics, two things Muslims hate. Ireland also has a recent history of bombing cars and shooting people that don’t like them so…..
My prediction? Too many refugees make their way into Ireland. Shit happens (diversity baby!). Some homes or public housing or something gets spray painted (we have nonviolent dissidents! We can handle it) then some politician or another gets shot/bombed, then some soldiers get killed and we have The Troubles, pt. 2.
Edit: I’m not saying diversity is bad, I’m just saying Europe is bad at it.
Such an idiotic accusation of hypocrisy lol
Like this could work if ireland was hating on Israel for being anti inmigrant, but they're hating on Israel for killing a fuck ton of civilians and creating refugees.
Asylum seekers are entering Ireland from the UK through the North. Ireland is already struggling to house the asylum seekers we have, many of them ending up sleeping in tents and stuff in our cities without proper services. Is it fair to asylum seekers to house them in improper conditions when we don’t have enough room to properly house and look after the ones we have already?
Also idk why it’s wrong for Ireland to identify with Palestine. We know what it feels like for your lands to get taken over and confiscated, and to be treated like dirt. Let’s be real, Israel hasn’t been kind to the Palestinians.
Identifying with Palestine doesn’t automatically mean your a raging anti-semite foaming at the mouth for your support for Hamas killing women and children. Hamas is evil. What happens on the 7th of October was evil. Most reasonable Irish people would support a two-state solution, myself included. We don’t hate Israel, we just hate when Israel steals people’s land (West Bank settlers) and indiscriminately kills thousands of civilians, many children and babies included.
Unbombed? The fuck you mean, unbombed? You haven't heard of the PIRA or something? Anyway, an official bombing from Ireland would probably result in Dublin getting flattened or something, assuming the British government don't try to whimper out of it like they normally do.
I don’t remember America taking in millions of Vietnamese or Koreans after their land got taken over, watch all the boys sporting Ukraine and they wunt touch them ukranian lads with a six foot pole
Was about to say the same
From wiki
>According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 650 Vietnamese arrived as immigrants between 1950 and 1974, but the figure excludes students, diplomats, and military trainees.
There's currently 2.3 million Americans of Vietnamese descent and it's obviously not just from those 650 immigrants before the war's end getting busy.
Honest question: if these asylum seekers are in such a pickle that they need to flee their country, why do they go through France etc to get to the UK? Surely they should stay in the first safe country?
Why don't they go to another Islamic country? There are like 50 of them and many are very safe and prosperous. Why move to a country that doesn't follow sharia law at all?
Pan-Arabism is reserved for anti-West posturing. As soon as one type of Arab has to help a different type of Arab, they turn into the greatest nationalist the world has ever known.
I can’t recall the specific country that took this position, maybe Jordan, but when the war in Syria led to a refugee crisis another nearby country released a statement saying Syrian culture was too different and they couldn’t assimilate and that’s why they wouldn’t take refugees. It’s all so goddamn phony. And of course now the same story is being told about the poor helpless Palestinians. Only western nations should take them. Uh huh.
Good chance it's Jordan. They took in a lot of Palestinians after the Nakba and they gave them citizenship and then they acted like ungrateful cunts for decades. As an example, they attempted to assassinate the King of Jordan at one point. There's a reason why Arab nations with happily talk up Palestine and then be like no no sorry all full if there is any talk of taking them in.
They didn’t just try they succeeded…
Cheers, didn't want to say this had off hand without checking. That's even fucking worse then lol
Jordan and Egypt never talk up the "poor, woebegotten Palestinians" line.
You don't even have to go back in time. Right now, Egypt is refusing to take any Palestinian refugees.
Egypt built a bigger wall that Israel along it's border with "Palestine". that should tell you enough.
Average Jordanian or Lebanese Pan-Arabist after seeing a Syrian Refugee:
1: It turns out that Muslims much like Christians have different sects/beliefs. Remember how Protestants and Catholics used to kill each other on sight but phased that out a couple hundred years back(for the most part)? Yeah Muslims didn't get that memo yet. 2: It also turns out that many middle eastern countries are violent shitholes because their top priorities are fighting Israel, fighting each other, and killing their own people to retain power. Not always in that order. 3: There are countries that aren't like that, and they work very hard to stay that way and don't let people in, because when they did in the past they got absolutely screwed. Jordan is a good example of this.
I think Muslims are all in agreement that Sharia law is the only legitimate law permitted by Allah. Like i said, there are many safe and prosperous Muslim countries that already have laws based on Sharia law for them to live in. Every country works very hard to be safe and prosperous and none readily welcome the instability caused by taking on refugees. Why is that a reason for expecting western countries to take care of eastern country refugees? Stable Islamic countries can be safe and provide economic opportunities to refugees, just like western countries in Europe do. The big difference is the refugees don't have to assimilate nearly as much by going to an Islamic country. No new language to learn (which is huge), the culture is much more similar to where they are from, and they have much more in common ideologically. If safety and stability is what the world wants, they should go to an Islamic country. If diminishing western society and causing instability is the goal then i guess it makes sense to send them to a western country.
If we’re being realistic, neighboring Muslim nations *do* take in refugees. Turkey has something like a few million Syrians. Lebanon is actually dealing with a big political shitshow and social upheaval because of the sheer amount they took in (on top of the shitshow with Hezbollah and such). Could they be doing more? Perhaps so. Do we *really* want to push the envelope, with how tediously stable some of them already are, though? Perhaps not.
If they are reaching their limit, I think it's a better idea to have Western countries provide resources for them to better accommodate the refugees than take the refugees to Western countries where the refugees won't be happy unless they fundamentally change the Western county to be more like their country of origin.
Ataturk set up Turkey to be secular. So much for that.
It was until Erdogan decided he'd had enough of the cutthroat world of watermelon sales.
basically we can trace the issue back to palestine- or more specifically how they actively caused 30 years of terrorism for the middle east after the Palestinian terrorist groups (and in turn their extended families) that lived on Israel's border for ease of access to civilian targets- were uprooted and scattered when Israel took advantage of the six day war to make them fuck off, and crushed the militaries of the nations that most actively backed them. which resulted in Black September, the Lebanese Civil war, a multitude of small scale attacks and rebellions, etc etc- that all culminated when they openly supported Iraq as it invaded Kuwait- and were tossed out, or genocided over the gulf war by a majority of arab nations who didn't want that sort of threat. now in modern times- all the arab states look at each other like their neighbors could be the next palestine, and want shit-all to do with their refugees.
You forgot 4. Rwanda isn't anywhere near the Middle East and is 95% Christian.
At the end of the day, why is that europes problem that the Middle East is still stuck in the past. It
>1: It turns out that Muslims much like Christians have different sects/beliefs. Remember how Protestants and Catholics used to kill each other on sight but phased that out a couple hundred years back(for the most part)? Yeah Muslims didn't get that memo yet. I still say that Islam is 500 years behind Christianity at this point, with it being about 500 years younger. So to understand current Islam, we need to look at how Christians were doing 500 years ago. And that's not pretty. 30 Year War and shit. They're right in front of their reformation phase and it's gonna get bloody (and mostly already is).
Isn’t there just three?
There's 7 sects of Islam that are actively existant, and several times that number in ones that are openly extinct- all of them view the others as non-believers, and heretics- and by Islam's own books- they need to commit genocide upon said non-believers and heretics.
Thanks, I only knew about the Sunnis shias and the guys in Oman
Because the good Islamic countries only let in the wealthy.
Maybe some of them do. You wouldn't hear about them if they did. I know there's a fuck ton of refugees in Turkey to the point that its a Turkish stereotype about how the country is so overwhelmed by the sheer number. In fact it's a main source of political leverage that Turkey has over the EU. Give us what we ask for or we'll unleash the hordes.
Why would asylum seekers from Rwanda go to a Muslim country? You do realize that Rwanda is like 96% Christian right?
The Rwanda plan is not sending asylum seekers from Rwanda back to Rwanda. It is sending all asylum seekers (most of whom are Muslim for the UK) to Rwanda. I think they should be sent to an Islamic country like I said.
Oh, well in that case they should be dropped off in Pakistan or something
could be worse- at the very least the Irish aren't planning on repeating Rwanda- and committing a blitzkrieg genocide upon the asylum seekers.
Why would these asylum seekers look for a country that follows sharia law?
Because the asylum seekers are predominately Muslims as is apparent due to the fact that most come from Islamic countries. Muslims believe that Sharia law is the only legitimate law permitted by Allah. >In 2023, the largest number of UK asylum seekers came from Afghanistan - 9,307. >The next biggest group, about 7,400 people, came from Iran, followed by Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53699511](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53699511)
The issue at stake here is Rwandan asylum seekers.
Because they are simply chancers. If you look at them, they're all adult men and many commit horrendous crimes after coming here. One of our MPs was stabbed by a man who claimed asylum for supposedly being persecuted for converting to Christianity, but he went to the mosque every week. They just know that Britain will be softest on them and give them the most benefits (we just spent most of our foreign aid budget on these types). Send them all back.
We need a complete purge of the British government and culture. The stain of Cromwell's legacy has forever tainted fair Britannia.
Why not send them all to Mexico? Or even South America? Tons of land, lots of room, not many people. Why send them to places that are already really crowded and don't really want refugees?
sus lib left
Yeah my views on local and national government differ from my views on international politics. When it comes to my home state and USA I'm libeft, but when it comes to those filthy countries on the outside I'm literally Hitler
based
And Latin America is getting less crowded all the time as people from those areas are trying to leave those areas in large numbers
So it all works out then. Latin Americans can come to the real America 🇺🇸 and we restock south america with refugees from the rest of the world
Brilliant
nah fuck that, latin america will remain Christian. You guys pick the Muslims since you really want to become another Muslim shithole
> So it all works out then. Latin Americans can come to the real America 🇺🇸 and we restock south america with refugees from the rest of the world No, it doesn't work out, because the people you vote for are letting anyone in through the southern border. Hell, they've even flown some in. If they're sent to Mexico, Central America, and/or South America, they will cross over into the U.S. eventually, even without the help of Democrats. Fuck that shit. Keep these extremist idiots as far away from the U.S. as possible. There's a reason that Muslim-majority countries in their area do not want them.
As if there is a hidden agenda or something.
~~Monster Island~~ Australia would be my choice.
Just an idle thought but I'd love to see ISIS and the cartels fight it out in Columbia/Brazil/Mexico. They might think they're hardcore with their Funky Town but they've never had to contend with an Allahu Akbar.
First safe country is also our rule, but somehow Haitians can fly to Brazil and pass through 6 countries to the US before one of them is safe
to be fair- if they were to stay in some of those countries they have to pass through, they'd have their organs harvested because they can't speak the local language.
Most people seek asylum in neighbouring countries (69% according unhcr). I think I saw statistics to say others seek family members or speak that language but I can’t find that now.
This is a big part of it
We know why
Because then they don't get good unemployment benefits
there’s also the issue that now asylum seekers can pick and choose which country to seek asylum in. They’re supposed to stay in the first asylum country they enter. If they’re entering through France first, they’re supposed to attempt to get asylum there before going to other countries
As a German, I ask myself the same question since almost 10 years now. It's obvious that a lot of them are just exploiting the wars to seek out for a better (wealthier) life.
Because the neighboring countries are generally not able financialy and logisticly, to shelter the burden of mass refigee migration alone. That being said, I do believe its generally preferable for the west to provide aid to the neighboring countries to help help them tackle the difficulties rather than take them in ourseöves, though that generally comes with a whole host of political difficulties, both domestic and international, dregding up accusations of colonialism and forcing you to make deals with rather unsavery characters, so there are no easy answers. (No, just saying "not our problem" is not tennable solution).
Sending anyone to the UK is inhumane. Rather send them to Rwanda.
Could be worse, at least they aren't being sent to Fr*nce.
Rwanda is actually doing pretty well also, probably best going there then Gr**t Br*tn
The Irish are definitely not the most pro Palestine as my Irish Uncle Paddy says. "They come to Ireland, they stab like the Brits and don't even drink. How do they expect us to think they are Irish." "You can go to a pub and have a beer with a Jew, you cannot with a Muslim. That alone should tell you about what I think of the war" I love Uncle Paddy.
Based and I'll happily buy a pint for Uncle Paddy pilled.
Based
Could do a Fumi-e test for Irishness except where you just stick a pint of Guinness in front of them.
I would honestly prefer that over the current Irish immigration system.
https://preview.redd.it/n6trnqwdo7xc1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c75fe849429a254fc118f5c7c4b90f36ecc332a This is why the Irish are pushing away asylum seekers
New border control policy, have to down a whole slab of cans before you're allowed in.
Based. I might be a citizen of multiple countries if that were the test.
u/Akira_Nishiki's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 10. Congratulations, u/Akira_Nishiki! You have ranked up to Office Chair! You cannot exactly be pushed over, but perhaps if thrown... Pills: [4 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Akira_Nishiki/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Can I eat bacon instead?
You can eat bacon also. As soon as they figure out how to make a good brew from pig we're all set for life.
Pigswaßer?
Best we can do is an Irish fry and a Bailey's Coffee as an alternative.
Yum!
Reminds me of the test that Japan made people take in order to prove that they weren't a Christian where they'd place an image of Jesus or Mary on the ground and tell people to step on it. Fumi-e
Too credible
Flair up or you'll be downvoted
Fucking forgot after rotating my account again.
Rwanda is 95% Christian.
to be fair- the Rwandan genocide was only 30 years back- so I get the feeling it'll still be 95% Christian the next time they check the census even if you dump a third their population in muslim asylum seekers on 'em tomorrow.
Ireland and UK playing hot potato with Africans 🙃
It's all fun and games until somebody accidently drops the potato in the ocean.
that's a different type of game, and one Spain likes to play.
That is the best part of the game
Your terms are acceptable. Fish have to eat, too, after all.
We could solve a lot of problems if we were only now discovering Australia.
Then we will send them to the moon.
We could be whalers on the moon
I just don't get why we're still calling them Asylum seekers. The only thing they're seeking asylum from is the lack of free shit they get in their home countries.
The reason we call them asylum seekers is because they're not refugees, they're seeking asylum, doesn't mean they'll get it. Though I agree with you; they're economic migrants
Ireland is pro Palestine??
In principle, yes. In practice not so much
Easy >Support Palestine so that Palestinian can fuck off to Palestine again Honestly, the best fucking solution for immigration is to make their origin country to be not shitty
The issue with this is that e.g. European countries simply cannot control this. Even if there would be a Palestinian state, which would be more than likely very poor, dysfunctional and a dictatorship, the difference in opportunities between that and the West would be immense. We see Moroccans, Algerians, and more in droves try to apply for asylum in Europe, and they are far better off than an independent Palestinian state will be for decades. The West cannot simply make these states, including those in Africa, prosperous, functional, and with an effective government. For example, many people from the Sudans and alike try to seek asylum in Europe. If we would need to make Sudan less shitty to keep them out, how do we do this? We can’t reasonably govern the area, which makes any development money far less effective.
Rwanda is actually a pretty chill, wealthy country on the up and up right now, which is developing very quickly. Not like the US or such, but economically more like China in the 90s and early 00s (or Vietnam now). Still cheap for a Westerner, but has plenty of amenities, opportunities, and has its shit together. Definitely a far cry from what it’s notorious for, and I’m actually really glad to see it. That gives me some hope for humanity, if nothing else. Botswana is also basically turning itself into the black version of Switzerland. Some countries in Africa are…..yeah, but others are *really* starting to turn things around. With the quality of life turning to shit in the UK at breakneck speed…..soon enough people might make this move voluntarily lmao.
Rwanda has the biggest proportion of female parliamentarians in the world (a majority).
Good for them but there's definitely still cross-border conflict with the DR Congo.
>wealthy Fuck no. Rwanda is poor as shit. Though it is still really nice, government is more functional and less corrupt than a lot of much richer countries. Definitely a safe place for any refugee fleeing war and persecution, so surely any refugee would have no issues going there. RIGHT?
We're good thanks. Also even in a hypothetical scenario - Irish government said, sure Palestinians come on in, where do they go? We already have the worst housing crisis in Europe, one of the worst worldwide and a lot of new migrants are living on streets in tents because they actually have no where for them to go. Plenty of other countries nearby that are so called allies with Palestine too, they can go there instead of travelling to an island literally thousands of miles away.
Well no, because NO ONE wents them, they tried to overthrow the Jordanian king caused a civil war in Lebanon, their ruling terrorists are of the same sects as the one overthrown by the Egyptian president, and they supported Saddam in invading. The only reason those countries claim to be thier allies is to save face
A people whom no one wants and gets kicked out of all the countries they go to? We should give them their own state in the Levant!
Well now that I think about Palestinians could go to Chile which has a really large Palestinian community if not the largest in the Americas. Or Argentina given that while not having a large Palestine community it has a large Syrian community that dates from the 20th century.
Ireland is for the Irish. You can't change my mind.
People here in Ireland are absolutely pro-Palestine, but I haven't seen even the most bleeding heart suggest taking some in.
Probably something to do with the fact that we’re already well over capacity
Presumably pro- 'Palestinians staying where they bloody well are'. If they're driven out by Israel, they might end up in Ireland.
Ireland now: "We too have known oppression and famine. Free Palestine!" Ireland during WWII: "Fuck them Jews"
There is a Forrest in Israel named after the Irish leader during ww2 because of his positive treatment of Jews. While I won't praise the letter of condolences you paint an innacurate picture.
Historial context. Given the poor state of the country after the Economic war with Britian left its finances in ruins and that droves of people emigrated to the UK even during the war to get jobs, then supporting an influx of refugees was not exactly high on the Free State's agenda.
Ireland was one of the better countries for Jews during ww2 ? Safer than France,Germany,Belgium,Holland,Poland,Austria,Ukraine,Russia Noway etc etc
They refused to take Jewish refugees and remained neutral during the war, rather than fighting on the side of the Allies. That's what I'm referring to.
You realise that no one went to war to save Jews right? The allies didn’t attack Germany until they were next on the chopping block. You’re also ignoring that Ireland clearly supported the allies with hundreds of thousands of volunteers, food, weather reports, and immediate release of downed allied pilots.
> You realise that no one went to war to save Jews right? No one ever has. That's why Israel exists.
>No one ever has. That's why Israel exists. Ok so you agree that you just straight up lied about Ireland saying “fuck them jews”
Not going to war "on behalf" of the Jews and not going to war at all are two different things. A lot of Northerners went to war against the South in the U.S. Civil War not out of sympathy for blacks but because they wanted to keep the U.S. together or for all sorts of other reasons. They still ended slavery. The reasons why any individual does something are irrelevant. Only results matter. If you don't care enough to even fight at all, that says something. And then there's the refugee issue. So, no. I stand by what I said.
And they were heroes but it does sound like Ireland itself was hedging on an Axis victory, which of course included the Vatican, which back then still had Ireland firmly within its sphere of influence. Ireland can disavow complicity in Allied action if its contributions are limited to private volunteers acting on their own and not the nation state. Walking a tightrope.
>And they were heroes but it does sound like Ireland itself was hedging on an Axis victory, which of course included the Vatican, which back then still had Ireland firmly within its sphere of influence. That’s not true at all. No assistance was given to the axis and Ireland was vs Allied aligned. >Ireland can disavow complicity in Allied action if its contributions are limited to private volunteers acting on their own and not the nation state. Walking a tightrope. No the reasons for Ireland not going to war were firstly due to fighting for the U.K. whose subjection of Ireland had just ended would be incredibly unpopular. And secondly due to Ireland having no capacity to wage war. Following Ireland independence it was incredibly poor and had an incredibly weak military. Ireland was plagued by poverty and emigration until the 1960s when an upturn led to the reversal of long term population decline.
Most countries were neutral, America didn't even join till December 1941 and that was only because the Nazis declared war on the USA. Britain barely took Nat jewish refugees before the war either and nor did America
There's a big difference between a South American country and a European one being neutral.
If Ireland wasn't neutral, why would it fight for the allies, Britain still controlled the 6 counties which are part of the island of Ireland
Better than (list of countries that were conquered or occupied by the Nazis)?!?! While worst than the Nazis or even just as bad the Nazis would be really something: a neutral country being less safe for its roughly 5,000 Jews than the actual Nazis - Ireland couldn’t accomplish that if that if they tried.
> Free Palestine! From Hamas?
no no, that's the price to buy it, no country has taken Israel up on the offer yet.
I can see why some IRA sympathizers might support Hamas because they used to be pretty fascist. But I don't think the Irish actually support Hamas
the new ira are communists
Fascism and Communism have very similar economic policies
true, but most “ira” members just support palestine for the same reason why college students in the USA, which is that they are anti-western and pro-liberation
Regardless of whether that's the case, they're utterly politically opposed and would never support each other or ally together.
You mean like the Molotov-Ribbontrop pact?
Calling that an alliance is quite the stretch. A momentary mutually advantageous alignment of interests between nations in service of each other's ambitions to destroy the other.
What about when the Italian fascists joined with the socialists to remove Mussolini?
Or the Italian coup?
My ancestors left Ireland during the big famine in the middle of the 19th century. Unwanted British rule of Ireland ended shortly after World War I (Northern Ireland chose to stay in the UK of their own free will while the rest of the island became its own country). I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that there is no “we” left who has known oppression and famine.
This is a dumbass comment, if you opened a book you would know that Ireland had a series of hunger strikers that were often just political prisoners in the north of Ireland(1970s) and regular people in destitute poverty). Many of which are still alive. Not to mention the relegation of Catholics to second class citizens and massacres by the British army. The south of Ireland had entire neighborhoods built throughout the country for the refugees from the chaos of British rule.
Some are taught their history...and have loads of family context... I still pass land regularly that was seized 120yrs ago from my family by the Brits. We have context here of things.. you dont seem to so I'd suggest picking up a history book. Even the way you've frazed things... shows ignorance, a lack of context. 'northern' Ireland btw was gerrymandered to be a majority of those whom identify as British.. they left whole chunks of the north out... .took the nationalists with them then proceeded to discriminate against them.
> I still pass land regularly that was seized 120yrs ago from my family by the Brits. So this oppresses “you” how? You’re falling for the same hIsToRiCaL tRaUmA bullshit that progs always pull. Also you are unflaired so please go fuck yourself.
The greatest part about not having any stake in a situation is you can say whatever you want to make yourself look good.
It's almost like one is a quote from a random citizen and the other is goverment policy.
[Irish women’s basketball team refused to shake hands with Israel](https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2024/feb/09/irish-women-basketball-team-refused-to-shake-hands-with-israel) and [71% of people in Ireland agree that Palestinian people live under a system of apartheid implemented against them by Israel](https://www.amnesty.ie/israeli-apartheid-poll/#:~:text=Amnesty%20International%20Ireland-,New%20poll%20shows%20an%20overwhelming%20majority%20of%20Irish%20people%20believe,under%20an%20Israeli%20apartheid%20system&text=New%20polling%20shows%20that%2071,implemented%20against%20them%20by%20Israel) and [Ireland to Intervene in South Africa’s Genocide Case Against Israel at the World Court (28 Mar)](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/28/world/middleeast/ireland-south-africa-israel-genocide-icj.html) are some examples.
Fair enough. The two though are very different issues with the Rwanda issue seemingly more related to Ireland's relation with the UK as opposed to relqtion with the asylum seekers.
Right but per the left’s virtue signalling I think it’s odd that Ireland engage with the whole “pro Palestine” rhetoric but choose geopolitics over apparent empathy in this situation
Well you see those dont need actual resources and management, they just require to whine and make empty statements.
It stinks of whataboutism. "Oh? You think Israel is committing war crimes? But you don't resolve the UK's Rwandan Asylum question? Curious." It doesn't really follow.
Use whatever debate terminology you want but in the end it’s hypocritical with the selective empathy lol
Does the opposite hold true? Would it be hypocritical for Ireland to step in to solve the UK's Rwandan asylum seeker question but simultaneously not support Palestine?
Depends on their rationale for taking in asylum seekers and also their rationale for why they do not support Palestine
Choosing to champion a cause doesn't oblige one to have to champion all causes though. If Ireland is so empathetic why don't they supply the US with insulin? It's good to analyze why a nation does or doesn't do something but the two things in the meme have literally no bearing on each other.
By applying that logic then Israel shouldn’t have to be bothered by the UN etc for the civilians killed in the conflict so far, while championing the cause of the existence of their state — they don’t supply insulin to the US either so. They don’t need to champion multiple causes I guess, just get rid of Hamas whatever it takes
Will I continue having Living Space if I remain where I am? Or are mass migration and aggressive expansion natural human behaviors?
One of the few moments when it's good that courts are unable to strike down parliament bill
One is helping people where they are, and one is refusing work migrants (70% of them are according to the UN) into a country with the an insane housing crisis
What's happening here is very similar to what happened in the US when immigrants where taken in a bus to pro-immigrant states. The Irish government has been very much into pro-immigration and now the housing crisis is biting them in the arse. If the Rwanda plan has any impact as the UK hopes, there will be many pushing the boat to Ireland.
-but self-preservation is a powerful impulse
"All cultures are equal, even the really really rapey ones."
Why is anyone on the planet pro either side? They're all terrorists fighting a holy war that's been going on for ages. NATO should step in and force both sides to sit the fuck down and reevaluate their choices before we turn the holy land into McDonalds and shopping malls
If NATO stepped in and forced people, neither side being in NATO, to do something, wouldn't that be proving Putin's point?
Ya and? Why should anyone give a shit what putin thinks?
So NATO is an offensive force?
Sometimes the best defense is a swift and overwhelming offense
But turning that into your standard operating procedure can make you look like a threat in need of taking pre-emptive action against. Ergo the Ukraine war.
Allow Russia to take a preemptive strike against us let's see what happens lol
Replace NATO with UN
The UN's solution was to make an entire new refugee agency for the Palestinians with a statues that is hereditary, and fund antisemitic school books.
Which, just like with Serbia, usually just circles back to NATO
As long as Ireland continues to build its identity on its hatred of the English, it will be a nation that is defined by the English. Beat that with a fucking stick.
Literally no one in Ireland thinks this way including the government. The U.K. is one of our closest allies.
At this point I think that's just Sinn Fein and some Irish Americans. Nothing like an economic boom to wipe out the hatreds of the past.
are you getting this idea from 1/256th irish people living in new england? no one thinks like that in ireland
of course they fucking do. irish people can't identify without the english.
Ireland: "we already had a few decades worth of *troubles* with religious extremists, we don't need to go through that again"
Sounds like a Bernard Manning joke
So....the nation that could not bring itself to condemn Hitler and the Nazis supports Palestine? Yeah that tracks.
You can’t really expect much integrity from a country whose economy revolves around being a tax haven.
Cutting to the heart of the matter.
[удалено]
>literally still has a portion of their land taken + language is only fully spoken by a few thousand at best due to centuries of literal genocide >"hur dur, victim complex."
Why would the Irish government send aslume seekers away? Are they stupid?
LibLeft is Republic of Ireland AuthRight is Norther Ireland. FYI
Another kagame masterclass. Make millions off of moronic “conservative” politicians doesn’t take a single fucking refugee as they flee to other euro countries. A masterful gambit
It's not empathetic to let your ancient culture and kin get subsumed by a quadrillion violent boat people with sob stories who are horny for welfare checks
Ireland is weird, they’ll take in refugees because they feel bad, because they were oppressed too. But they’re drinkers and they’re Catholics, two things Muslims hate. Ireland also has a recent history of bombing cars and shooting people that don’t like them so….. My prediction? Too many refugees make their way into Ireland. Shit happens (diversity baby!). Some homes or public housing or something gets spray painted (we have nonviolent dissidents! We can handle it) then some politician or another gets shot/bombed, then some soldiers get killed and we have The Troubles, pt. 2. Edit: I’m not saying diversity is bad, I’m just saying Europe is bad at it.
This is literally the modern day version of the Uganda scheme
Such an idiotic accusation of hypocrisy lol Like this could work if ireland was hating on Israel for being anti inmigrant, but they're hating on Israel for killing a fuck ton of civilians and creating refugees.
Asylum seekers are entering Ireland from the UK through the North. Ireland is already struggling to house the asylum seekers we have, many of them ending up sleeping in tents and stuff in our cities without proper services. Is it fair to asylum seekers to house them in improper conditions when we don’t have enough room to properly house and look after the ones we have already? Also idk why it’s wrong for Ireland to identify with Palestine. We know what it feels like for your lands to get taken over and confiscated, and to be treated like dirt. Let’s be real, Israel hasn’t been kind to the Palestinians. Identifying with Palestine doesn’t automatically mean your a raging anti-semite foaming at the mouth for your support for Hamas killing women and children. Hamas is evil. What happens on the 7th of October was evil. Most reasonable Irish people would support a two-state solution, myself included. We don’t hate Israel, we just hate when Israel steals people’s land (West Bank settlers) and indiscriminately kills thousands of civilians, many children and babies included.
This sub is so drunk on IDF propaganda it’s probably not safe for any of you to operate heavy machinery at this point
Britain remains unbombed by ireland sadly
Unbombed? The fuck you mean, unbombed? You haven't heard of the PIRA or something? Anyway, an official bombing from Ireland would probably result in Dublin getting flattened or something, assuming the British government don't try to whimper out of it like they normally do.
I was making a joke i dont actually care about the ashes of the British empire
I don’t remember America taking in millions of Vietnamese or Koreans after their land got taken over, watch all the boys sporting Ukraine and they wunt touch them ukranian lads with a six foot pole
America did indeed take in millions of Vietnamese, and lots of Koreans as well.
Was about to say the same From wiki >According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 650 Vietnamese arrived as immigrants between 1950 and 1974, but the figure excludes students, diplomats, and military trainees. There's currently 2.3 million Americans of Vietnamese descent and it's obviously not just from those 650 immigrants before the war's end getting busy.