Immigration - Solutions?

Ryvita

I watched this documentary last night on Channel Four:

Dispatches - Keep them out

It got me thinking on what the best way to deal with Asylum seekers would be for our own country? The main thing that struck me from the Dispatches documentary was the complete lack of knowledge and understanding these people had about Asylum Seekers.

I really think the government/Media should start a campaign to educate people about Asylum Seekers and immigration policy in our country as well as giving the public an insight into who these people are and where they are coming from.

I believe we live in a privileged society and that it is our responsibility to help people who are less well off than ourselves.

I was just wondering what suggestions people had about this issue considering the referendum is looming.

Executive Steve

the best way is to ensure that the lag between their arrival and the point at which they become net contributors to the irish economy is kept as small as possible.

dathi1

I think we should have the same system as Malaysia and Singapore. Anyone entering illegally will be deported immediately and or jailed. Anyone who wishes to apply for asylum from their host country is welcome to do so. Anyone who wants to work here can apply for work permit subject to the necessary criteria.
All this talk about lag times, special rights, free legal aid, 100,000 euro deportation flights etc...would be history.

Ryvita

Originally posted by dathi1
I think we should have the same system as Malaysia and Singapore. Anyone entering illegally will be deported immediately and or jailed. Anyone who wishes to apply for asylum from their host country is welcome to do so. Anyone who wants to work here can apply for work permit subject to the necessary criteria.
All this talk about lag times, special rights, free legal aid, 100,000 euro deportation flights etc...would be history.

If someone is under threat of death in their own country their only option may be to enter our country illegally. Is it right for them to deport them immediately and say it's not our problem. I think we need an alternative.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
Anyone who wishes to apply for asylum from their host country is welcome to do so.

Because people who actually have valid asylum claims generally have no problem sending applications across the border of the nation that they fear for their life in.....

Why don't we just refuse them point blank, or shoot them? That would solve the problem too, and be just about as useful to them.

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by Ryvita
If someone is under threat of death in their own country their only option may be to enter our country illegally. Is it right for them to deport them immediately and say it's not our problem. I think we need an alternative.

They are meant to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Due to Irelands geographical position it's quite likely that this rule has been ignored. In saying that Ireland should take their fair share of asylum seekers but these should in almost all cases not have applyed for asylum in Ireland. Or am I missing something with the current regulations?

dathi1

Why don't we just refuse them point blank, or shoot them? That would solve the problem too, and be just about as useful to them.

I think that would be a bit over the top:) ....again I'm going by other countries example. Australia anyone?

dathi1

If someone is under threat of death in their own country their only option may be to enter our country illegally.

That's a fair point and yes I concede that in exceptional circumstances this has to be considered. Unfortunately since the post economic boom late 90's economic asylum shopping is the norm and it smothers completely the numbers of genuine refugees. As your economy grows for some reason more people under the "threat of death" seem to want to move from other safe countries to yours.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
again I'm going by other countries example. Australia anyone?

Yes, but if some countries have an example of "don't let anyone in for any reason, at all", would you accept that as a policy worth adopting? It solves their problems with asylum seekers, but its not particularly useful when it comes to the asylum seeker's point of view.

Thats what I was driving at....just because some other country has a policy which is effectively a closed-door (e.g. the "apply from your own country" one) doesn't mean we should take it as a good way to do things.

Australia, incidentally, would fit my bill of the wrong way to do things as well.

jc

spongebob

We have other problems too.

We have 10's of thousands of legal immigrants who will spend maybe 25% (assume 10-12 years) of their economically active lives here, legally, paying PRSI. We will always have LEGAL immigrants, this is a new issue for Ireland but it needs to be addressed.

There is no mechanism for them to collect their pension (when it arises) in their own countries from our pension fund. That needs sorting.

I see doctors, nurses and programmers, high contributors to teh tax take and prsi take who will get nothing when they leave. I also see meat factory workers and hotel workers for whom the Irish contributions will form a large part of their pensions, if they can get them . The Irish economy cannot function without targeted immigration now ....and never will in future.

Needs sorting. The whole immigration situation needs joined up thinking. We will never get that from a myopic reactionary like Mc Dowell unfortuantely.

The false asylum seekers are creating a cloud which does not benefit the genuine asylum seekers at all and which distorts our reality when it comes to treating contributors to our economic wellbeing, INVITED if not Begged to work here may I add.

M

bonkey

Originally posted by Muck
There is no mechanism for them to collect their pension (when it arises) in their own countries from our pension fund. That needs sorting.

Never realised that. Damn right it needs sorting.

I'm pretty sure that when I leave Switzerland, my state-pension contributions here can be taken with me, or left in Switzerland to become the basis for a Swiss pension when I retire.

jc

Ryvita

Originally posted by dathi1
Unfortunately since the post economic boom late 90's economic asylum shopping is the norm and it smothers completely the numbers of genuine refugees. As your economy grows for some reason more people under the "threat of death" seem to want to move from other safe countries to yours.

See this my problem with the whole debate. Who are these economic refugees and why are they doing what they are doing? What are genuine refugees? How do you prove they are genuine?

I think that in discussing this people forget that we are talking about human beings and for whatever reason "genuine" or other they are fleeing their own country. Even if it is for economic reasons, what's so bad about that? Shouldn't we still be willing to help or is it only if they are near death?

Immigration. - As long as the person/family etc can contribute to the State, in some form of Job, then yes they're welcome in my eyes. Those that have nothing to contribute can move on to somewhere else.

Asylum seekers - Case by case examination. However, same conditions for immigrants should be applied here. (some exceptions to be determined later)

Illegal Immigrants. - kicked out. Immediately.

false asylum seekers - Fined. AND kicked out.

Sorry, but I'll reserve my sympathies for those that deserve them. Those that I determine.

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
Immigration. - As long as the person/family etc can contribute to the State, in some form of Job, then yes they're welcome in my eyes. Those that have nothing to contribute can move on to somewhere else.

Asylum seekers - Case by case examination. However, same conditions for immigrants should be applied here. (some exceptions to be determined later)

Illegal Immigrants. - kicked out. Immediately.

false asylum seekers - Fined. AND kicked out.

Sorry, but I'll reserve my sympathies for those that deserve them. Those that I determine.

And if the illegal immigrant faces death when he is deported home? Not your problem?

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
Sorry, but I'll reserve my sympathies for those that deserve them. Those that I determine.

So who deserves your sympathy? I'm not trying to be provocative I'm just interested to know who you feel deserves help?

IronMan

As was stated above, an asylum seeker is meant to seek refuge in the first safe country they come across. This legislation is ignored in large parts of Europe, e.g someone who is refused asylum status in France, can in many cases just get the boat to England and apply for the same status there. There can be no doubt that many of the migrants that enter the country are here for the economic benefits, many just in the short term. Again as stated above this country needs these people, they do the kinds of work that many Irish people just wont do. Many come here on work visa's and many are exploited by their employeers. This needs to be addressed urgently so that these people can be treated fairly and above board.

However we also have groups coming here with the sole intention of milking our social welfare system. They exploit loopholes in our legislation and see Ireland as a soft target. Many of them are involved in varying levels of crime and fraud, and are here almost solely for economic gain. They cloud the genuine asylum seeker, and the workers that we need to keep this country ticking over.

It's obvious that we do need changes to our laws and social welfare system, to make this place less appealing to those who come here to exploit these systems. However on the other hand we need to treat those that come here with legitimate work visa's with greater respect and to offer them the same rights as those that have been born, raised and work here.

And if the illegal immigrant faces death when he is deported home? Not your problem?

They would fall under the asylum seekers, don't u think?

So who deserves your sympathy? I'm not trying to be provocative I'm just interested to know who you feel deserves help?

Honestly, it depends on the circumstances. I don't like broad commitments of sympathy. For example, I donate to children charities, however i have very few sympathies for the homeless. There are some exceptions, but I prefer to base my sympathies on an individual basis.

Ryvita

Originally posted by IronMan
It's obvious that we do need changes to our laws and social welfare system, to make this place less appealing to those who come here to exploit these systems. However on the other hand we need to treat those that come here with legitimate work visa's with greater respect and to offer them the same rights as those that have been born, raised and work here.

I agree with what your saying. But by changing the system to ensure that people who will exploit it are stopped we may effect people who are genuinely in need.

Also about these people who exploit our social welfare system. Has this been documented? I'm not saying it's not happening, but how extensive is it? It's some people's fear of this that is provoking racist feeling in this country.

We need to see and be shown what the reality is.

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
They would fall under the asylum seekers, don't u think?

As mentioned earlier a person who is in fear of their lives may not have time to make a formal application and could very easily fall under the umbrella of "illegal immigrant".

Originally posted by klaz
Honestly, it depends on the circumstances. I don't like broad commitments of sympathy. For example, I donate to children charities, however i have very few sympathies for the homeless. There are some exceptions, but I prefer to base my sympathies on an individual basis.

I'll leave your issues about the homeless to one side ... as it's not relevant ... but really would love to know what the issue is there.

With regard to basing your sympathies on an individual basis - we need to bring in laws that work. Unfortunately it's hard to take every possibility.individual into account when doing that.

bonkey

Originally posted by Ryvita
As mentioned earlier a person who is in fear of their lives may not have time to make a formal application and could very easily fall under the umbrella of "illegal immigrant".

I think you may have misinterpreted what was written.

In most nations - including Ireland at the moment - you apply for asylum immediately on reaching the country, and it should be the first "safe" country you have arrived on since leaving your homeland.

What you are highlighting, I think, is the problem that I pointed out may exist with the policy in Singapore etc. which someone else (daithi?) had suggested as a preferable system to what we have at the moment.

jc

arcadegame2004

I strongly agree with IronMan and Daithi that our current system is being abused. Let me first address the points made by some on this forum about migrants fleeing persecution. If they are genuinely fleeing persecution, and they then arrive in the EU, then they have ALREADY reached safety when they arrive in the FIRST EU state they enter. They have NO need to continue on out of that first EU state through 6 or 7 perfectly democratic, safe countries to arrive in Ireland. There is NO legal right for them to do this. Nor should there be, since the Irish taxpayer does not need to have this burden placed on its shoulders, especially when the asylum-seekers ESSENTIAL needs are already being taken care of in that other EU state.

For example, let us suppose a Chechen refugee is fleeing persecution in Russia. Suppose the first EU state they arrive in is Greece. Now, under the Dublin Convention 1981, he/she must claim asylum in Greece and stay put. Suppose and African migrant illegally arrives in Spain - the first country in the EU they arrive in. Let he/she stay put in Spain and claim asylum there. Or if it is Italy let them stay put and claim asylum there. The Irish taxpayer is NOT putting anyone's life in danger by insisting on this. Simply send asylum-seekers in Ireland back to the first EU state they entered. There. Whose life does that put in danger? Why should I pay money to people when the taxpayers of Italy or Spain are legally required to deal with this individual? We have more pressing priorities and we can meet any need for economic-migrants to fill skill shortages from the citizens of new EU member-states or by work-permits. It is stupid to suggest we should meet these needs from asylum-seekers when you consider that legally they are not allowed to work and are extremely unlikely to be found genuine, based on the fact that 66% of them come from the safe countries of Nigeria and Romania. Let someone from outside the EU who wants to come here to work apply for a work-permit, or for the new Green Card that Minister McDowell is reportedly planning.

As far as I am concerned the term "asylum" is one of the most abused terms in our world today. It should mean "safehaven from persecution". It should NOT mean "go to the country with the most generous welfare system and pretend to be fleeing persecution in order to stay there". Don't tell me that Ireland is the first safehaven a genuine refugee enters. You know you dont believe that yourself.

What I found strange and unusual was the fact that a lady was interviewd on the RTÉ nine o clock news last weekend.
She was an asylum seeker from the czech Republic and a resident of the Mosney facility and was all distraught at the fact that she was going to be evicted from the first of may as her country was a member of the E.U now...
I saw similar reports on BBC news last week end regarding assylum seekers having to leave sheltered accomadation there because their country was joining the E.U

The lady in mosney was be moaning the fact that she now had to find a job:rolleyes:
If she's progressive enough she will find a job, now that she's entitled to work.
On another note the employment agency that I'm involved with recently held a job fair in Poland, we were mobbed with inquiries, for people we badly need.
Seven of these came in last week and are about to start work at rates comfortably above the minimum wage.These are jobs that we can't seem to get local people to fill.
If I mention that I notice INTEL are hiring again, this post will look like a newsletter

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Let me first address the points made by some on this forum about migrants fleeing persecution.

You know...when you start a big long explanation by mixing up the terms, it entirely undermines any point you might be able to make.

For what is undoubtedly not the last time...

Asylum seekers are fleeing persecution.
Migrants are not.

If they are genuinely fleeing persecution, and they then arrive in the EU, then they have ALREADY reached safety when they arrive in the FIRST EU state they enter. They have NO need to continue on out of that first EU state through 6 or 7 perfectly democratic, safe countries to arrive in Ireland. There is NO legal right for them to do this. Nor should there be, since the Irish taxpayer does not need to have this burden placed on its shoulders, especially when the asylum-seekers ESSENTIAL needs are already being taken care of in that other EU state.

All of which applies to - and only to - asylum seekers, not migrants.

Simply send asylum-seekers in Ireland back to the first EU state they entered. There.

I can see it now...

"Excuse me sir, but you have no right to stay in this country. Where was your first port of call?"

"Ireland"

"Ho ho. Very amusing sir. Surely it wasn't. We believe you must have stopped somewhere else. Now please sir, where was your first safe port of call"

"Ireland".

"Ah - we've decided you're a liar, so we're randomly going to pick... ummm.... Greece and send you there. Oh, unfortunately because you'll now be entering Greece from Ireland, and there is no actual proof you came to here from there, they won't be obliged to offer you asylum once you get there either.

Best thing is if you just go back home to those who were persecuting you, sir, forget the whole thing, and pray to whatever god you have that you don't get killed for whatever reason caused you to run away originally".

As far as I am concerned the term "asylum" is one of the most abused terms in our world today.

"Migrant" would rank up there with it...what with so many people unable to make the distinction and all.

Don't tell me that Ireland is the first safehaven a genuine refugee enters. You know you dont believe that yourself.

You know that there is also a not uncommon practice amongst asylum seekers to rip up their passport (at least over here in Switzerland), so that not only is there no way of knowing where they came though, you can't even know for sure where their point of origin was to send them anywhere.

Your entire solution is based on a false premise - that those who seek asylum will co-operate with those refusing them asylum in being sent to another country to seek asylum there instead, and also on a faulty premise - that the country we send them to will accept that they came from there without proof, and will agree to take them coming from another safe haven like Ireland.

Sorry, but if it was that simple, don't you think it would be already solved??:?

jc

arcadegame2004

Earthman your point about the irony of the asylum-seeking Czech woman being annoyed at having to work is well made and points to the fact that the vast majority of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland are really benefit tourists with no intention of working. At least now that her's and other countries are now in the EU will ensure that people wanting to have enough money to live on in this country will have to work for their pay instead of sponging off the State.

Bonkey, I do not share your fatalistic view that it is impossible to properly implement the Dublin Convention. All asylum-seekers claiming asylum in Italy, Spain, France, or Greece, after arriving by sea, should be held in comfortable reception-centres to prevent them moving to another EU State. That would prevent them asylum-shopping in other EU states. They would then be deported if found to be illegal-immigrants. I see you again make reference to the claims that some of these people would be executed if returned to their former countries. We know that 33% of asylum-seekers in Ireland are from Romania. Are you suggesting they will be executed or tortured if returned to Romania? Come on now....

In case an asylum-seeker somehow escaped the supervision of the authorities in one EU-member state, I propose that apart from my reception-centre proposal, I would also compulsorily finger-print all asylum seekers in reception-centres in whatever member state they have arrived, firstly or later. There fingerprints would then be inputted into the new Eurodac database which has now been created to help combat multiple asylum-claims. In that way, via comparison with the fingerprints already inputted in the Eurodac database, we could discover which asylum-seekers had already applied for asylum in another EU state. These individuals could then be deported back to the first EU state they entered, rather than to their countries of origin. There, Bonkey, does this not resolve the concerns you expressed?

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Earthman your point about the irony of the asylum-seeking Czech woman being annoyed at having to work is well made and points to the fact that the vast majority of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland are really benefit tourists with no intention of working.

Wow. From the comments of one women you can draw conclusions about "the vast majority of asylum-seekers." You are good.

MrP

arcadegame2004

Well Mr.Pudding, what other reason can you give for an asylum-seeker crossing 6 or 7 democratic Western states in order to arrive in Ireland, especially when you consider they are not allowed to work here?

MrPudding

I was not attempting to explain anything. I was simply pointing out that based on the comments of one woman you were passing judgement on thousands of people.

I think it is fairly safe to say this is a massively unfair generalisation. I have met several Irish people who did not want to work. Do I get to say all Irish people don’t want to work? I’m Irish, I want to work so that can’t be right. I could come up with hundreds of these from personal experience but I will leave you with this one. I met a couple of anti immigration people who were racist. Does that make all people opposed to immigration racist?

MrP

Originally posted by MrPudding

I think it is fairly safe to say this is a massively unfair generalisation.

MrP

Probably correct, but it might be fair also to say that it is indicative of a trend or a problem among a section of these migrants.
A non E.U citizen looks to be showing the signs of economic migrancy rather than asylum seeking migrancy when they cross several E.U borders to come here rather than apply for the asylum at their first port of call within the E.U

MrPudding

Originally posted by Earthman
Probably correct, but it might be fair also to say that it is indicative of a trend or a problem among a section of these migrants.
A non E.U citizen looks to be showing the signs of economic migrancy rather than asylum seeking migrancy when they cross several E.U borders to come here rather than apply for the asylum at their first port of call within the E.U

I'm sorry, I didn't really do much book learnin so help me out here. When did 1 instance of something become indicative of a trend? Am I missing something here? How many babies were born in Dublin last year? I should know this, I think arcade has mentioned it a few times. I will use the figure of 20 000 (I have a suspicion that that might be the figure for one hospital but it's not important.) One of them was my son. We called him Loïc. It is likely that he was the only child thus named. If he was the only child given this name does that make him indicative of a trend for people to call their kids Loïc?

MrP

arcadegame2004

Right. Well what is certainly indicative of a trend of economic-migration is the fact that large-scale migration of non-nationals to the Republic of Ireland since independence did not start until the late-1990's which happens to coincide with the Celtic Tiger years of rapid economic growth. The fact that a trickle of people became a flood is hardly a mere coincidence. They certainly didn't come all this way simply for the weather, or to admire the scenary.

vorbis

arcadegame2004, its hardly a flood in relation to other countries economic migrants numbers. Its a bit ironic, Ireland sends millions off to other countries to work and yet whinge incessantly when a couple of thousand come here.

Valentia

My father went to America in 1946. Just before he left he mentioned to a friend that he had better watch out for the Italians and the Poerto Ricans. "No." he was told. "Watch out for your own. They will cut your throat before anyone else."

He is now a healthy, vibrant 85 year old, with wisdom to burn. He lived at a time when the Black & Tans raided his house. He is a true Republican and cannot understand the biggotry of this supposedly friendly nation.

Ireland of the welcomes me arse. We surely have to be the most intollerant and most hypotritical race on this planet. I know many people who left for England in the 50's & 60's to claim social welfare because there was nothing for them here. I also know many today who can't read or write.

For someone to come on here and say that "they" surely know this or that is so sickeningly condescending it makes me feel sick.

People don't really matter anymore in this post Tiger era. Lucre rules.

But then I suppose some of you are young and know so much there is shag all else to learn :dunno:

Should our national motto be "TAKE, to hell with giving"?

silverside

refuse them point blank unless they can show evidence that this is the first safe country they have arrived in. most of them are chancers, a harsh approach will discourage the others.

Valentia

most of them are chancers

From what county?

Jazus surely they are not developing Irish traits even before thay come here?

arcadegame2004

"Ireland of the welcomes me arse. We surely have to be the most intollerant and most hypotritical race on this planet. I know many people who left for England in the 50's & 60's to claim social welfare because there was nothing for them here. I also know many today who can't read or write." (Valentia)

Valentia, that is different because even before Ireland and the UK were part of the EU, all Irish citizens were granted automatic British citizenship under the Ireland Act 1949. As such Irish immigrants to Britain were not going there illegally. My point is a matter of law. And anyway, the numbers of Irish people going to the UK, and especially to the US, were hardly going to become a major burden on those respective economies, given how massive they were (and still are) compared to our own economy (British GDP - $1.2 thrillion, USA GDP - $10 thrillion, Republic of Ireland GDP - $150 billion). These other countries' enormous populations and greater wealth ensure they can easily afford the cost of large-scale migration to their lands. The Republic of Ireland is a tiny economy internationally, and as the cake is far smaller there is far less to go around. Hence we see the downgrading of our hospitals as the asylum-seekers (benefit-seekers is a more suitable term) are handed things that Irish immigrants to Britain were never handed, including the taxpayer footing the entire bill for the asylum-seekers' local-authority rent payments, telephone and ESB bills, not to mention free taxi-fares and free driving-tests ( I kid you not!).

"He is now a healthy, vibrant 85 year old, with wisdom to burn. He lived at a time when the Black & Tans raided his house. He is a true Republican and cannot understand the biggotry of this supposedly friendly nation." (Valentia).

Bigotry? Don't be ridiculous. This is NOT about hatred of other races. It is about international-law (The aforementioned Dublin Convention 1981), together with the unfairness of Irish people getting treated less generously than non-EU nationals in our own country (e.g. the asylum-seekers get their LAH rent paid for them - courtesy of the Irish taxpayer - and get fastracked to the front of the LAH waiting list while Irish families have to wait YEARS), and also the fact that the Irish taxpayer is every year more and more being burdened with a taxbill to pay for this unrestricted flow of people. I repeat again Valentia, the Irish economy cannot be compared to the US economy in terms of ability to pay for all these people. The US economy is the largest in the world. My country has a tiny economy internationally. Reading your post, one could almost be forgiven for believing that the Republic of Ireland is the only country in Western Europe where someone can find a better life. The first country that the vasdt majority of asylum-seekers land in is either a Mediteranean country e.g. if you are an African, or Germany, e.g. if you are a Romanian. 66% of asylum-seekers coming to the Republic of Ireland fall into the categories of Romanian and Nigerian. You are also forgetting that at the time the vast majority of Irish people headed to the USA, they were not "asylum-seekers" in the legal sense of the word. Nor were most of them "illegal-immigrants". The USA at that time had a policy of encouraging migration, as they were seeking to populate their vast unpopulated Western regions. The Republic of Ireland is not some vast undiscovered continent that needs to take a decision like that. The first duty of our Government is to find jobs for the 150,000 Irish people that are out of work. If all the talented people leave the Third World then the consequent "brain-drain" will damage the economies of their countries, so we are actually helping them.

Now I will address Vorbis's point:

"arcadegame2004, its hardly a flood in relation to other countries economic migrants numbers. Its a bit ironic, Ireland sends millions off to other countries to work and yet whinge incessantly when a couple of thousand come here."

Vorbis, we are in fact ranked joint second in the EU in terms of numbers of asylum-seekers arriving here per head of population (joint-second with Belgium). Thousands coming to a small country to leave off the benefits-system (asylum-seekers aren't allowed to work remember) stands in stark contrast to the Irish work-motivated migration to other countries - most of which was perfectly LEGAL unlike the asylum-seeking in Ireland today. Also, in a small economy, thousands of asylum-seekers are an equivalent proportionate burden on the Irish economy as much greater numbers going to a country like the UK. Ireland is a soft-touch on asylum-seekers/benefits-seekers. Listen to that Czech woman on Morning Ireland complainin that now her country is in the EU she'll have to work! The cheek ! She effectively admitted what I and many others suspected! We have gone to 6% of our population being non-nationals in just 6 years - a statistic that it took the UK decades to arrive at since the start of their Government's mass-migration policy in the 1950's ( It is currently 7% in the UK ). In that context the term "flood" should not be seen as an exageration.

The continuation of our current laxness on the asylum-issue will only fuel racism because it treats asylum-seekers better than our own people. It plays into the hands of potential BNP/Front Nationale types in this country (who currently have absolutely tiny support among the Irish people as shown from the fact that they won not a single seat in an Irish General Election ). This is actually another reason to crack down on the illegal-immigration into Ireland.

Valentia

Hence we see the downgrading of our hospitals as the asylum-seekers (benefit-seekers is a more suitable term) are handed things that Irish immigrants to Britain were never handed, including the taxpayer footing the entire bill for the asylum-seekers' local-authority rent payments, telephone and ESB bills, not to mention free taxi-fares and free driving-tests ( I kid you not!).

You kid me not? You don't kid me mate. You obviously are so blinkered by your legal nuance that you will not let the facts get in the way of a pseudo intellectual arguement. Please, for heavens sake, get your facts right. Your arguement is shot down in your ignorance of the real world. At least make an effort to find out what the true situation for am immigrant is before you pontificate as if you know what you are talking about.

Cogent sentences do not the truth make!

FYI the Irish immigrants DID get these. Immigrants here do Not get what you say. Hardly seems worthwhile argueing with someone that takes hearsay and bigotry as fact, but hey I'll make this one exception.

arcadegame2004

"Immigrants here do Not get what you say. Hardly seems worthwhile argueing with someone that takes hearsay and bigotry as fact, but hey I'll make this one exception." (Valentia)

I am NOT expressing bigotry. Bigotry is hatred of others based on what they are. I do NOT hate other races. I simply want to see the law applied equally to everyone and Valentia, whatever you may say, you know thatyour country has tightened up the immigration-system (rightly) considerably since September 11th. Why should we be any different, especially given the Madrid attacks?

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Right. Well what is certainly indicative of a trend of economic-migration is the fact that large-scale migration of non-nationals to the Republic of Ireland since independence did not start until the late-1990's which happens to coincide with the Celtic Tiger years of rapid economic growth. The fact that a trickle of people became a flood is hardly a mere coincidence. They certainly didn't come all this way simply for the weather, or to admire the scenary.

I ask you again. How can the comments of one person be taken as indicative of a trend? Just answer the question. That is all I want.

MrP

BuffyBot

Valentia, that is different because even before Ireland and the UK were part of the EU

In the 50's and 60's? Wow, they kept that quiet...

Originally posted by MrPudding
I'm sorry, I didn't really do much book learnin so help me out here. When did 1 instance of something become indicative of a trend?
MrP

You should take the context of the paragraph as a whole and not the first sentence
Well, it's not Scotty that beamed a lot of these migrants here, nobody suddenly said energise and they appeared.
They had to travel for the most part via other E.U countries to get here, that more than just the voice of one person is indicative of a trend.

Presumably that czech woman crossed borders to get here also, although Aer Lingus do fly direct to prague, but only fairly recently afaik

p

I think the way to stop immigration (if you believe it's a problem) is to stop it at the source.

That means helping countries become better off.

People stand by when genocide happens in Africa, but complain when people arrive at their doorstep asking for help. You need to stop it at the source, by helping these countries.

Removing trade barriers which prevent Third World countries from competing would be a big help.

MrPudding

Originally posted by Earthman
You should take the context of the paragraph as a whole and not the first sentence
Well, it's not Scotty that beamed a lot of these migrants here, nobody suddenly said energise and they appeared.
They had to travel for the most part via other E.U countries to get here, that more than just the voice of one person is indicative of a trend.

Presumably that czech woman crossed borders to get here also, although Aer Lingus do fly direct to prague, but only fairly recently afaik

OK here it is again:

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Earthman your point about the irony of the asylum-seeking Czech woman being annoyed at having to work is well made and points to the fact that the vast majority of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland are really benefit tourists with no intention of working. At least now that her's and other countries are now in the EU will ensure that people wanting to have enough money to live on in this country will have to work for their pay instead of sponging off the State.

I have quoted the entire paragraph. Now correct me if I am wrong but it really seems to me that he is drawing a conclusion about all asylum-seekers from this one persons comment. How they get here or anything else is irrelevent. If you feel it is OK to draw conclusions about thousands of people from the comments of one then I feel I am perfectly within my rights to call you a racist. As I mentioned earlier I once met a couple of anti-immigration nuts who were racist. I have to say I did not meet them on boards but in a pub. Given that yourself and arcade seem to have very loose ideas about sampling and going by your own system I can call you a racist.

MrP

arcadegame2004

I am NOT a racist and I am fed up of the Irish Left labelling all their opponents on the immigration-issue as "racists etc". Are the rest of Europe racist for not allowing automatic citizenship on the basis of births to asylum-seekers? A racist is someone who hates other races, or someone who assumes some races are superior to others. I abhore such views. But the question is one of the law and of resources. The 350 million Euro paid by the Irish taxpayer to asylum-seekers is a waste of money, going to people who are already having their needs taken care of in another EU country - or would have had they chosen to apply for asylum there. So why then should we not return them to a previous EU country of entry? What is so racist about that? I do NOT hate other races. I merely feel that Ireland has enough problems at the moment without having to spend very large sums of money on a potentially unlimited cost. And I believe I speak for many.

Can you quote where I said that this one womans remarks were "indicative" of a trend? A symptom of a trend is perhaps a better way of putting it. But it is ludicrous to suggest that 10000% increase in asylum-seeking since before 1998 has nothing to do with our growing economy, or to do with the births-for-citizenship rule. Otherwise, why didn't they come here before then? There was already mass-migration of asylum-seekers to EU states then much richer than us such as Germany and the UK remember. Do you want us to end all restrictions on immigration to Ireland?

Originally posted by MrPudding
OK here it is again:

I was referring to the entire paragraph in context when I replied to you and which you quoted and replied to me. Here is what I said again...

Probably correct, but it might be fair also to say that it is indicative of a trend or a problem among a section of these migrants. A non E.U citizen looks to be showing the signs of economic migrancy rather than asylum seeking migrancy when they cross several E.U borders to come here rather than apply for the asylum at their first port of call within the E.U

The essential question in that is, why not the first port of call in the E.U,why go all the way to Ireland, the cough more or less fastest growing economy in the EU...
Unless of course many are economic migrants?

arcadegame2004

Spot on Earthman.

Ryvita

bigotry

\Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

A small question if they allowed these people to work would you have a problem?

Do you really feel that all these people are leaving their own countries to live off social welfare in Ireland because they are lazy and don't want to work in their own countries? Do you think there's a chance they may be coming from serious poverty and that they are coming to Ireland because they know they'll get a house and be supported by our state? If you were that poor and had children would you not do the same? Would you not want a better life for them if it was at all possible?

I started this thread to discuss a way to better solve the problem with Immigration policy in Ireland. The problem with Immigration policy in Ireland, is that it is creating an atmosphere of racism and bigotry.

Some posts here are talking about these people as if they are cattle that should be herded from one country to another. It IS racist. You see these people as thieving beggars come to sponge off out "tax-payers money".

Gurgle

Hi, welcome to Ireland!
Here is your RSI number, here's a voucher to stay in Mosney for 6 weeks, heres vouchers for Tesco which should feed you for 6 weeks, here's a list of places currently hiring short-term workers at low wages to get you started.

If you're not sorted out in 6 weeks, get back to us.

Next!

Too easy ?

Just exactly what kind of immigrants do we not want here ?

The ones who will do the jobs the Irish don't want, for pay we wouldn't get out of bed for ?

The highly qualified ones who would give their right arm to be allowed pick up their career in IT/medicine/pharmacy/whatever from where it was blown out from under them in their home country ?

Ireland can de nothing but benefit from an increased workforce who will do a fair days work for a fair days pay. You give them handouts & don't let them work, you're just breeding resentment on both sides.

Ryvita

People have a fear of immigrants/Assylum seekers in this country. This has to be dealt with as well. If there are criminals coming into our country then they should be dealt with in the same way that the criminals who are from this country are dealt with. We should all be put in the same system.


This is my 100th post .... Yay!

spanner

Originally posted by dathi1
I think we should have the same system as Malaysia and Singapore. Anyone entering illegally will be deported immediately and or jailed. Anyone who wishes to apply for asylum from their host country is welcome to do so. Anyone who wants to work here can apply for work permit subject to the necessary criteria.
All this talk about lag times, special rights, free legal aid, 100,000 euro deportation flights etc...would be history.

i agree totally with you, ireland needs to be in line with other western governments by promoting legal immigration. but all these benefit tourists and bogus aslyum seekers must stop. If they are risking life and limb to come from france over here its obivious they see us as a soft touch. austrialia had to do what they did out of sheer nessity.

also while we are on the topic can anyone confirm or deny these things:

1. asylum seekers get free cars or a large discount on them.
2. asylum seekers get free buggies

spanner

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I am NOT a racist and I am fed up of the Irish Left labelling all their opponents on the immigration-issue as "racists etc". Are the rest of Europe racist for not allowing automatic citizenship on the basis of births to asylum-seekers? A racist is someone who hates other races, or someone who assumes some races are superior to others. I abhore such views. But the question is one of the law and of resources. The 350 million Euro paid by the Irish taxpayer to asylum-seekers is a waste of money, going to people who are already having their needs taken care of in another EU country - or would have had they chosen to apply for asylum there. So why then should we not return them to a previous EU country of entry? What is so racist about that? I do NOT hate other races. I merely feel that Ireland has enough problems at the moment without having to spend very large sums of money on a potentially unlimited cost. And I believe I speak for many.

Can you quote where I said that this one womans remarks were "indicative" of a trend? A symptom of a trend is perhaps a better way of putting it. But it is ludicrous to suggest that 10000% increase in asylum-seeking since before 1998 has nothing to do with our growing economy, or to do with the births-for-citizenship rule. Otherwise, why didn't they come here before then? There was already mass-migration of asylum-seekers to EU states then much richer than us such as Germany and the UK remember. Do you want us to end all restrictions on immigration to Ireland?

couldnt put it better myself, control immigration will benefit ireland and allow us to develop into a multicultural society. however the current system promotes racism

Meh

Originally posted by spanner
also while we are on the topic can anyone confirm or deny these things:
1. asylum seekers get free cars or a large discount on them.
2. asylum seekers get free buggies

You can find a full list of everything asylum seekers are entitled to here.
As you can see, there's no mention of either cars or buggies.

You may also be entitled to assistance towards clothing when you arrive and to other exceptional needs from time to time. Your CWO will advise you on this.

Buggies could come under this heading, however I'd hardly begrudge them that. Irish citizens are entitled to the exact same.