Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
You like reviving ancient history don't you?
These issues need to be reconciled.
You like reviving ancient history don't you?
No they don't. Society has, thankfully, moved on from that situation. If the parade was to celebrate the ending of the Troubles then you might have a point. It isn't though and it's only fools on both sides of the arguement that would make such a link.These issues need to be reconciled.
No they don't. Society has, thankfully, moved on from that situation. If the parade was to celebrate the ending of the Troubles then you might have a point. It isn't though and it's only fools on both sides of the arguement that would make such a link.
So why not dump all the nationalist myth crap and the glorification of violence and camapaigns on behalf of murderous thugs.
I support teh unification of NI with the republic .To do so you are going to have to win the confidence of the Protestant people of Northern Ireland and you aren't going to do that by endless whining about past grievances and supporting ex terrororists.
I long for the day when Orange Flute Bands and their green equivalents are long gone and the only remnants are' sealed knot 'type reenactors of 1690
This thread has certainly been tedious with all the c&p keek supplied by our comrade nigel....
back on topic:
According to latest reports pol looks like winning his extradition fight thankfully:
http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irish-voice/news/Articles/pol-brennan-deportation191108.aspx
Where?Do you actually have any personal opinions that aren't C&P spams from the TOM movement (against the FAQ rules BTW)?
http://www.irishabroad.com/news/iris...ion191108.aspx
Bit of a result then?
Very disapointing result, I love the way all the reports I have read keep saying ira 'militant' as if there is an other way!A former IRA militant's request to remain in this country has been denied by a South Texas immigration judge.
If you want to put up a political argument then do so.

source: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/14/america/NA-US-IRA-Detainee.php?page=1...Then [U.S. Immigration Judge] Peterson asked Lessa Whatmough, assistant chief counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, if the government would argue Brennan's tie to terrorism. Whatmough said the government would not. "There's waivers available for everything except that and you're not going to take a position on that?" an incredulous Peterson said. Whatmough doublechecked during a short recess and returned with the same answer. Peterson then said he had also requested a position from the U.S. Department of State and was told the agency declined to respond. Brennan's attorney Jim Byrne suggested later that even during Brennan's detention in California's Bay Area in the 1990s the government did not charge him with terrorist activity, but rather with fraud on his passport application and when registering to buy a pistol. Byrne said the exclusion of terrorism surprised him. But Thomas Hachey, executive director of the Center for Irish Programs at Boston College, said that the British government had given a broad waiver to people involved in the Northern Ireland conflict as part of the 1998 Good Friday Accord. "I think it would be bizarre for the U.S. government to make that argument when I don't think the British government would," Hachey said. The U.S. government would not label the IRA today a terrorist organization — though in his mind it was at one time — so Brennan couldn't be branded a terrorist either, he said. "I don't think the government would have a leg to stand on (with that argument)," he said. The issue is likely wrapped up in the same complicated politics that Whatmough said were behind the strange situation that allowed Brennan to repeatedly renew his work permit in the United States without having a firm immigration status. When Peterson asked about that, Whatmough said the reason was "probably various political considerations over the years with various administrations." It was only when Brennan "landed in our laps" at a Border Patrol checkpoint in January with an expired work permit that the government was spurred to act, Whatmough said...
source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6137400.htmlBrennan could file an appeal within 30 days to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Falls Church, Va., which would review the case file, Komis said. If that panel upheld Peterson's decision, Brennan could take his appeal to the federal court system.
It was only when Brennan "landed in our laps" at a Border Patrol checkpoint in January with an expired work permit that the government was spurred
He didn't say he was a tourist who'd just been to Disneyland, though?Fact is, the US immigration system is incredibly tough and unflexible.
This is all they need to send you packing, and they treat European tourists like this if they don't "think" you are going to go home after your trip to Disney.
He didn't say he was a tourist who'd just been to Disneyland, though?
I know, read the post again. I was pointing out he had an expired work permit, and that is all they need to send you packing. If they treat tourists like shit, what makes you think they are going to treat a guy with an expired visa any different?
As I understand it, tourists in the USA are only permitted to stay for 90 days and are under a condition of not working. So if he had an expired working permit he'd not be a tourist.
If you're a foreigner in their country and you had a work permit or visa which had expired it seems fair enough that the immigration people would hold you to check out whether you were entitled in law to stay there.
The fact that a country sets its own laws doesn't make those laws 'fair'.See, that all seems fair enough to me. It's their country and they set the rules for non-citizens...
That's not a fair question to ask me, because as I suggested earlier, I have a particular view. I think this chap, who still has a jail sentence to complete, should come back home to face the music, and until that is dealt with I don't think the US authorities should give him house room.The fact that a country sets its own laws doesn't make those laws 'fair'. Explain to me the purpose of deporting someone who has lived in America for 25 years, has an American wife and kids and who has applied for a visa renewal (and as I understand it has been trying to get citizenship for a long time as well)? What reason is there behind this? What principle of justice do you invoke to justify doing this to someone and their friends and family? Who does it benefit - what public good does it serve?