Asylum Question

bloggs

Hello,

I have a number of questions, that i would very much like someone to help me find answers with.

Just say for example a Nigerian man is being oppressed in the north of the country by extreme elements of the Islamic community and he wishes to flee. To arrive in Ireland this man would have to arrive in two ways. One would be to perhaps go to Lagos and get a flight to London/Paris/Frankfurt. Then when there, take a flight to Dublin. The problem i have with this senario is that if you are being oppressed, wouldn't it be common sense to claim aslyum in London/Paris/Frankfurt? I don't mean this in the sense of the Dublin Convention, but in a common sense approach. Thus if you arrive in London and don't claim asylum, why would you then claim asylum in a different country, as common sense would suggest that you were fleeing oppression.

There is also the suggestion that if you were oppressed in the north of the country, you could flee to Lagos, which is mainly Christian. I know Lagos is not a very save place to live, but it would certainly be better if you were being oppressed by Islamic extremists.

The second method of arriving in Ireland would be via container ship. This would also pose a problem, as you would have to pay a human trafficer to get you to for example Ireland, they would put you on the container which would probably arrive in the port of Rotterdam or Hamburg. You would probably have to leave the container and get in another one bound for Ireland, suggesting why not claim aslyum there?

I would be very grateful if you could solve these queries for me, as they have been posed.

Thanks a lot

canker

I guess bord failte wishes it didnt send all those brochures to Nigeria now! (only kiddin). I don't know why they choose a perticular country, but a way to solve the problem is for their applications for assylum to be processed centrally by the EU who would apon deciding to grant asylum, place them into the most suitable country.

dathi1

Illegal economic immigrants will chose the country that they are least likely to be deported from and where in the case of certain nationalities the welfare system will compliment their black market antics etc .. ie: Ireland. A combination of Liberal dictat from Europe and lack of balls by our political elite complimented by a hyper politically correct press and media makes the situation worse every day.

Last year, although nearly 4,000 Nigerians entered the state seeking asylum only 46 were deported.

Ireland currently (April 2003) is in 3rd place in the EU for asylum applications per head of population, the only meaningful statistic.

Country applications per 1000 of population (Edited:) )

Britain###110,700########1.8
Germany###71,127#######0.9
France####50,798########0.9
Austria####37,074#######4.6
Sweden###33,016#######3.7
Belgium###18,805 #######1.8
Holland####18,667#######1.2
Ireland####11,634#######3
Italy#######7,281#######0.1
Denmark####5,947#######1.1
Spain######6,179#######0.2
Greece#####5,664#######0.5
Finland#####3,443#######0.7
Luxembourg##1,043#######2.6
Portugal######245#######0.02

bonkey

Dont you mean "per thousand", not "per head".

Otherwise, by your figures, the total population of Ireland is somewhere around 3,600.

I would also say that its the only meaningful "simple" statistic. There is a difference.

jc

colinsky

Perhaps this person wants to live in Ireland? Perhaps they have relatives, or friends living in Ireland? Perhaps they speak English, and could get along much better and get a job much more easily in an English-speaking country than, say, France or Germany?

Beëlzebooze

linkage to source please......

bloggs

Originally posted by dathi1
Illegal economic immigrants will chose the country that they are least likely to be deported from and where in the case of certain nationalities the welfare system will compliment their black market antics etc .. ie: Ireland. A combination of Liberal dictat from Europe and lack of balls by our political elite complimented by a hyper politically correct press and media makes the situation worse every day.

Last year, although nearly 4,000 Nigerians entered the state seeking asylum only 46 were deported.

Ireland currently (April 2003) is in 3rd place in the EU for asylum applications per head of population, the only meaningful statistic.

Country applications per head of population

Britain###110,700########1.8
Germany###71,127#######0.9
France####50,798########0.9
Austria####37,074#######4.6
Sweden###33,016#######3.7
Belgium###18,805 #######1.8
Holland####18,667#######1.2
Ireland####11,634#######3
Italy#######7,281#######0.1
Denmark####5,947#######1.1
Spain######6,179#######0.2
Greece#####5,664#######0.5
Finland#####3,443#######0.7
Luxembourg##1,043#######2.6
Portugal######245#######0.02

That's mad! Spain has a population of about 45 million, but we have almost twice as many applications. That doesn't make sense. While Finland and Denmark have a compined population of about 11 million, but our asylum levels are much the same???

bloggs

Originally posted by colinsky
Perhaps this person wants to live in Ireland? Perhaps they have relatives, or friends living in Ireland? Perhaps they speak English, and could get along much better and get a job much more easily in an English-speaking country than, say, France or Germany?

But wanting to live in a place surly can't be correct criteria for claiming aslyum. If you are fleeing oppression, surely you would want to just find a safe place. Being allowed to cherrypick places to claim it, makes a mockery of both your claim and of the asylum system?

It's like saying, 'help, i am being opressed and i have to find a safe place, but only if they speak English there'

Beëlzebooze

it does stand to reason however, if I had to flee the country, my well being would be first and formost, I would certainly not choose to go to a region where I would be persecuted for what ever reason. So as I am leaving the country anyway, why not pick a country where I have the most chance of building a future for myself?

tell me in all honesty, would you not do the exact same bloggs?

bloggs

Originally posted by Beëlzebooze
it does stand to reason however, if I had to flee the country, my well being would be first and formost, I would certainly not choose to go to a region where I would be persecuted for what ever reason. So as I am leaving the country anyway, why not pick a country where I have the most chance of building a future for myself?

tell me in all honesty, would you not do the exact same bloggs?

I know what you mean, but my example knocks this down, because you would have to get to Ireland via London, so that would mean that you don't like living in England for some reason. The only way around that would be to say that you aren't applying for asylum in London because you had friends/family in Ireland. It still doesn't sound to me that the person is really being oppressed, as would you risk being deported from one country when you knew you were safe in the first, just down to becuase you prefered going to that last.

BKtje

That doesn't make sense. While Finland and Denmark have a compined population of about 11 million, but our asylum levels are much the same???

Thats amount of seekers per 1000 of the native population.
So for 3 million population we got 3000 seekers.

While Spain with a population of 45million has 9000 seekers.

Beëlzebooze

I've been reading the conditions for refugees and asylumseekers on this page:

http://www.ecre.org/conditions/2003/ireland.shtml

I was always under the impression that the first country you land in (as a refugee or asylum seeker) was the country you had to apply for asylum. I cannot find anything on this one though, has this changed? I know for definate that it was the case in the netherlands about 10 years ago.

colinsky

Personally, I don't hold those conventions in much regard. As far as I'm concerned, a person should be allowed to live in whatever country they might want to. (Of course, I'm a non-Irish citizen living in Dublin, so what do I know?)

Cork

I think that an refugee or asylum seeker has to app;y for refugee or asylum status in the first EU country they enter. I think that this is called the Dublin Convention.

bloggs

I don't mean it in regard to the dublin convention, surely not even asylum seeker would be aware of it, but i mean it in regard to common sense, if you are fleeing a country wouldn't it be common sense to apply for asylum in the first save country you arrived in. Then when you become a refugee or citizen you apply for a visa to work in the country of your choice?

It doesn't make much sense to me, for someone to arrive in London from Lagos (for example) and tell Customs officals, 'no im not applying for asylum here, i want to fly to Dublin and then apply for it', the customs to say something like 'are you being oppressed in Nigeria' to a reply 'yes, but in don't want to live in Ireland instead'

bugler

By your logic, bloggs, Ireland should never really have to take in any asylum seekers, being as we are on the periphery of Western Europe. Who is going to have a straight journey over here from wherever they flee? And if you are going to leave the land of your birth, why shouldn't you choose what you feel will be the best destination for you and you family and your futures?

"bloggs", an appropriate name..You're not asking any questions, how thick do you think the readers of this board are? Your two 'queries', as 'they are', are nothing more than you expressing the belief that anyone who ends up claiming asylum in Ireland is a fraudster.

I wonder whose turn it will be next for the good common folk to start blaming for the fact that their son is too gormless to get off the dole. It's a pity that Ireland has no notable Jewish community, they're always good as a scapegoat. I do love to see the Irish bloggs' getting upset and jealous of the one group of people who have less than them.

Believe me, I can sympathise with the anti-immigrant section of Ireland. After all, no-one likes another group muscling in on a racket that they had sown up for so long.

bloggs

Originally posted by bugler
By your logic, bloggs, Ireland should never really have to take in any asylum seekers, being as we are on the periphery of Western Europe. Who is going to have a straight journey over here from wherever they flee? And if you are going to leave the land of your birth, why shouldn't you choose what you feel will be the best destination for you and you family and your futures?

"bloggs", an appropriate name..You're not asking any questions, how thick do you think the readers of this board are? Your two 'queries', as 'they are', are nothing more than you expressing the belief that anyone who ends up claiming asylum in Ireland is a fraudster.

I wonder whose turn it will be next for the good common folk to start blaming for the fact that their son is too gormless to get off the dole. It's a pity that Ireland has no notable Jewish community, they're always good as a scapegoat. I do love to see the Irish bloggs' getting upset and jealous of the one group of people who have less than them.

Believe me, I can sympathise with the anti-immigrant section of Ireland. After all, no-one likes another group muscling in on a racket that they had sown up for so long.

I thought this was a forum for people to express opinions and to find out other's points of view? Perhaps you don't agree with this? Why is it about this topic that upsets you?

colinsky

suppose dublin was suddenly contaminated by a chemical spill, and everyone was told to, for their own safety, to move to some other part of ireland.

now, honestly, would you just move to the first town you reach outside of the exclusion area? or would you give a bit of thought to... what sort of jobs are available, what sort of public amenities you use, what sort of schools there are, etc., and try to pick the best place to move to?

why should immigrants not have the same freedom? they aren't bad people. they don't want to hurt you. in fact, they like you so much they want to come to your country and be your neighbours!

bonkey

Originally posted by bloggs
I don't mean it in regard to the dublin convention, surely not even asylum seeker would be aware of it, but i mean it in regard to common sense, if you are fleeing a country wouldn't it be common sense to apply for asylum in the first save country you arrived in. Then when you become a refugee or citizen you apply for a visa to work in the country of your choice?

From a common sense point-of-view, I would make sure I was out of reach of those who were oppressing me. That typcally rules out all neighbouring nations. I would then pick a country where I felt / had heard / had found out that I was less likely to be deported back home again. There are a myriad of other things that would/could influence my decision.

You seem to think that asylum seekers have exactly one purpose, and thats to escape persecution. Generally, people have more complex lives than that. When faced with the myriad of possible ways that they can avoid this persecution, why shouldn't they make use of the choices?

It doesn't make much sense to me, for someone to arrive in London from Lagos (for example) and tell Customs officals, 'no im not applying for asylum here, i want to fly to Dublin and then apply for it', the customs to say something like 'are you being oppressed in Nigeria' to a reply 'yes, but in don't want to live in Ireland instead'

And could you produce your evidence that this is actually happening? That the vast majority of asylum seekers are arriving on transport which offered them a facility to disembark in England (which is what you are asserting).

Or are you just assuming that this "must" be the case, and drawing your conclusions from there?

bugler

Originally posted by bloggs
Why is it about this topic that upsets you?

1) I suppose the main factor that upsets me is the sheer ignorance that many people who don't know any better display, usually as a result of hearing some nonsense spouted by some anti-immigrant crusader. Example: A couple of months ago my aunt, who is by all other accounts a nice, tuned in lady suggested that asylum seekers were given €4000 to buy a car if they so wished. She's a nice woman, and is by no means stupid. Because of the pervasive nature of hostile, anti-immigrant attitudes people don't feel the need to stop and think, or god forbid check the facts. So number one on the list would be that rubbish like this causes people around me, my family, my friends, the society I live in, to act like zombies and demean themselves. This upsets me.

2) If people really want to save the money lost by all those HUGE CASH BENEFITS THAT ARE BEING THROWN AROUND TO EVERY COLOURED PERSON AND THEY DON'T EVEN WORK THE LAZY FECKERS then maybe start looking to the people who are really creaming off the top here. How about your local TD, who is probably claiming another 70% of his quite adequate salary in expenses. And getting more for when he actually bothers to go to work, god bless his hardworking soul. This also upsets me.

3) I suppose the scaremongering upsets me too. Again this is tied in with #1, as it needs ignorance to thrive. Oh no! My nice little boreen is in danger of being over-run with hordes of black people, who god forbid mightn't even go to church, or speak very good english! My favourite example of this was the claim of the 'Immigration Control Platform'(wasn't/isn't that their name?), which stated that one of the reasons (and oh how they had a few) that immigration should be resisted was that outsiders coming into Ireland could have a negative effect on the Gaeltacht areas of Ireland. As if the Gaeltacht's main threat was from outside this country, as opposed to the vast, vast majority of people who just can't be arséd to learn or speak the language. Look out, there's hordes of black people with little English coming ashore, and they're taking Connemara by storm!

4) The hypocrisy of the Irish attitude in general toward illegal immigration (leaving aside any notion of asylum etc). Yeah I know this one has been done to death, but it still annoys me. Despite living in a quasi-theocracy for some time, illegal Irish immigrants over the course of the past century had very little cause to flee the island. Yeah the black and tans were awful, but they didn't do anything that would raise an eyelid in almost any African country you could care to mention. But you can be damn sure that plenty of our upstanding citizens who look down on the morality of economic migration are just chomping at the bit to jump down off their soap box and run home to call Johnny who went to Boston on his visa and then didn't bother coming home. This upsets me. If anyone who has a family member/friend who has benefitted from emmigration (illegal or otherwise) refused to entertain hostility toward immigrants to this country then poor Aíne Ní Chonaill or whatever she's called would die of grief, the old slag.

I'm sure I have more, but I'm in a rush and have to get the place in order as the aforementioned Aunt is coming to stay for the night on her way to her holiday in Kinsale, which is surely awash with immigrants by this time.

bloggs

Thanks to those who have answered in a rational manner . I don't claim to have all the facts on this subject so i have to draw conclusons in most cases, i have tried to debate this subject before, and get useless 'answers' like that from bugler or insults. this is a hot topic and people will have their own agendas when debating it.

Beëlzebooze

I read today that about 11,000 people leave Ireland per annum for better deals abroad, and approx 12,000 come into the country, that pretty much evens up the score. ( I cannot find the site that mentions the irish emmigration figures any more, otherwise I would post a link!)

bugler

Originally posted by bloggs
this is a hot topic and people will have their own agendas when debating it.

Yeah, no doubt. Hope you had those awfully difficult questions that were taxing your mind answered. I suppose my agenda is that of a ******-lover? Even looking at these figures posted by anti-immigration posters you have to laugh...a whole THREE asylum seekers per THOUSAND Irish nationals? Wow, at this rate Ireland's purity could be diluted in a matter of weeks.

By the way, I'm not saying Ireland should necessarily allow more asylum seekers in per capita than any other European nation. But Irish people should at least have their own histories and the excursions of their friends and family in mind when thinking of immigration. How shameless a bit of wealth can make you..

I think a pan-European approach should be formulated to regulate the numbers of asylum seekers taken in by each country. Given a reasonably level standard offered by each country I doubt Ireland will have too many arrivals, god knows why anyone would want to come here.

dathi1

Bulger...calm down.
We can have a civil debate about the impact of uncontrolled immigration without labelling people as Fascists, Purists or whatever.
Lets face it uncontrolled immigration is wrong, immoral and doesn't make sense. Our ancestors had Ellis island to take care of before we were even accepted...and in that great democracy across the water where Irish America dwells no Nigerian or Romanian would stand a chance of entering that country illegally in the same way that they do here. They of course would end up on the next plane back.

I think a pan-European approach should be formulated to regulate the numbers of asylum seekers taken in by each country. Given a reasonably level standard offered by each country I doubt Ireland will have too many arrivals, god knows why anyone would want to come here.

So everybody should take their fare share of illegal immigrants? I don't think so. 400 million euro a year on our current bill is bad enough.
Why not just overhaul the whole immigration system to allow real asylum seekers to get in and have a proper non EU work permit system to allow people to work here normally.

Originally posted by dathi1
Lets face it uncontrolled immigration is wrong, immoral and doesn't make sense.

Well it certainly is wrong and doesn't make sense imho, but I don't think morality comes into it anywhere.
Why not allow these "asylum seekers" to work in menial jobs untill a decision is taken on their status, instead of the state paying them a wage for nothing?
at least that way, they are earning,perhaps paying taxes and have an incentive to remain "recorded".

Our ancestors had Ellis island to take care of before we were even accepted....

Indeed they did, and tens, if not hundreds of thousands passed through Ellis island and were accepted.
Many more tens of thousands of Irish citizens illegally worked and stayed in the U.S right throughout the 60's,70's,80's and to the present day.
So as a people some of us ought to be carefull with our double standards here.

and in that great democracy across the water where Irish America dwells no Nigerian or Romanian would stand a chance of entering that country illegally in the same way that they do here. They of course would end up on the next plane back.

Yes , but the U.S has of course a huge problem with illegal economic immigrants on their own doorstep, who have got through in their millions , despite having quotas and programmes over the years to control immigration, so thats no panacea either.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
So everybody should take their fare share of illegal immigrants? I don't think so. 400 million euro a year on our current bill is bad enough.

You missed the bit where we were thid in the "immigrantes per head" ratings, then?

Any pan-European approach which balanced out the numbers would decrease the load on Ireland...not increase it. We are above average. Any averaging out would result in a net decrease of immigrants into this country.

jc

colinsky

Lets face it uncontrolled immigration is wrong, immoral and doesn't make sense

I disagree with all three. Even ignoring the question of asylum vs. immigration, I don't see anything immoral about wanting to live in another country. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to live in another country, and I don't see anything nonsensical about wanting to live in another country.

They only possible objections to people living whever they might want is hatred, racism, or discrimination. Otherwise, there's nothing different from the average immigrant and you other than place of birth (and thus citizenship). That's not something anyone has control over. So, we should someone born in Nigeria who wants to live in Dublin be any less accepted there than someone born in Cork?

In my opinion, it is the the restrictions and controls that are wrong, immoral, and non-sensical, not the immigration.

Lemming

Originally posted by colinsky

In my opinion, it is the the restrictions and controls that are wrong, immoral, and non-sensical, not the immigration.

before I begin, debates on migration or asylum seekers are not something I'll cover in this post.

That above quote is a rather dangerous mindset to have from a national perspective. Have you considered the reasons why _every_ _single_ country in the world has some sort of border control Colinsky?

National authorities have a responsibility to ensure the stability of a country and the well-being of it's citizenry, not withstanding any internation agreements or conventions which that nation may be signed to.

colinsky

That above quote is a rather dangerous mindset to have from a national perspective. Have you considered the reasons why _every_ _single_ country in the world has some sort of border control Colinsky?

The question of "Border Control" can be separated from immigration.

Border control is necessary because a national border marks the end of a jurisdiction. If a wanted or suspected criminal manages to cross the border, they (ignoring extradition for a moment) potentially can manage to get away free. If they are a dangerous person, they'd pose a potential danger in the new country. That's why at the edge of a jurisdiction, it's good to check to make sure to check people for outstanding warrants and the like.

Some countries do a good job of this, others do not. To compensate for contries that don't do a good job of checking people on the way out, other countries can require visas and do their own security checks as part of the visa-issuing process.

This is independent of the idea that people should have a right to live anywhere they want. The normal migrant would work at a job and pay rent and taxes just like any citizen.

Border security doesn't not necessarily imply restrictions or quotas on immigration. It is merely part of the policing system -- a recognition of the fact that legal jurisdictions change at national borders.

Originally posted by colinsky
They only possible objections to people living whever they might want is hatred, racism, or discrimination.

Incorrect.
I work hard enough, not to invite all and sundry into my house to live and work there also.
It would dilute my comfort to the extent of making my working for a living not worth while.
Similarally uncontroled entry to this or any reasonably prosperous country, would do two socially and economically unacceptable things.
It would flood the country with people, in a short enough time, putting a huge strain on it's resources.
And secondly in so doing would provide an easy retreat for all and sundry from poorer countries to , countries where, the indigenous population have worked hard to make their society comfortable.
It's a generally accepted standard system in the western world.

mm

Lemming

Originally posted by colinsky
The question of "Border Control" can be separated from immigration.

Au contraire I think the two are complimentary of each other. The equation could be simplified to the following:

"Controlling whomever enters a national boundary"

Border control is necessary because a national border marks the end of a jurisdiction. If a wanted or suspected criminal manages to cross the border, they (ignoring extradition for a moment) potentially can manage to get away free. If they are a dangerous person, they'd pose a potential danger in the new country. That's why at the edge of a jurisdiction, it's good to check to make sure to check people for outstanding warrants and the like.

It is also easier to stop someone from entering a country whom doesn't have a valid reason to be there (be it criminal or economic) than it is to eject them from a country. US immigration control at, say, Shannon, or in NY or Boston or something would be a prime example of this.

This is independent of the idea that people should have a right to live anywhere they want. The normal migrant would work at a job and pay rent and taxes just like any citizen.

You do not have a right to live anywhere you want. Such a case would lead to absolute anarchy. Further, for example, an Irish person can have their Irish citizenship revoked *. So your "right to live at location X" is entirely at the discretion of country 'Y'.

Border security doesn't not necessarily imply restrictions or quotas on immigration. It is merely part of the policing system -- a recognition of the fact that legal jurisdictions change at national borders.

Then how can you seperate border control and migration?


* for example your capture as a mercenary in smoe country. Contact with yoru respective embassy will be enough to let you hear that your passport has been revoked before they hang up the phone and let you rot.

colinsky

Au contraire I think the two are complimentary of each other. The equation could be simplified to the following:

"Controlling whomever enters a national boundary"

But there's a huge difference in who you are controlling, and why.

In a security-based process, you are limiting the movement of those who are specifically wanted, based on warrants issued by the court system. These people are accused of having done something wrong, and are wanted by the government regardless of whether they were planning on travelling abroad. The limits are very specific, and apply top specifc people. These people are alleged to have done something wrong and be a valid danger to society.

In an immigration-regulation system, you are limiting the movement of people non-specifically, based upon national origin. This is a non-specific limitation. Non-specific limitations are, in effect, discriminatory. This is the part of the equation that I find harder to justify.

There's a big difference on your rights being limited based upon something you have done, than on the generic premise that "you're a foreigner, and therefore might do something bad".

Lemming

Originally posted by colinsky

In an immigration-regulation system, you are limiting the movement of people non-specifically, based upon national origin. This is a non-specific limitation. Non-specific limitations are, in effect, discriminatory. This is the part of the equation that I find harder to justify.

Actually, you'll find that control is not based upon national origin * and more upon economic criteria.


* International agreements between specific countries or a person holding citizenship for the nation in question not withstanding