Asylum Seekers in Ireland

Creagh Caper

A quick question that I'm sure has probably been debated before.

As far as i understand things, when a person is seeking asylum, they are supposed to go the nearest safest country (please let me know if this is not the case). How then, in Ireland, are there so many Nigerians seeking asylum here???

Dr Galen

how many are there?

GuanYin

Indeed, how many are there?

Do you mean Nigerians you see, or do you have figures for asylum seekers?

Do you know the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker?

Mena

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html should provide some detail, Psi's question(s) remain valid though

lostexpectation

the world isn't perfect.. SHOCK!

Creagh Caper

psi wrote: »

Indeed, how many are there?

Do you mean Nigerians you see, or do you have figures for asylum seekers?

Do you know the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker?

thanks very much for that response psi.

djpbarry

Creagh Caper wrote: »

thanks very much for that response psi.

So you don't have any figures then?

bartholomewbinn

Why are there Nigerian refugees in Ireland at all?

• There is no civil war, major unrest in Nigeria at the present time. So why refugees?
• There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland; therefore they have to come through a third country.
• If they are asylum seekers /refugees why do they not seek asylum/refuge in the first safe country they landed in?

I am not referring to students or people here on work visas etc. (people that are legally here) only to people who have no valid reason to be here.

GuanYin

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/the-asylum-process-in-ireland/applying_for_refugee_status_in_ireland

The process for applying for refugee status in Ireland.

I think people are very mixed up and don't really understand the "port of call" thing

lostexpectation

that after hours thread has attracted professional 'asking stupid questions they already know the answer to' types

mike4819

Creagh Caper wrote: »

A quick question that I'm sure has probably been debated before.

As far as i understand things, when a person is seeking asylum, they are supposed to go the nearest safest country (please let me know if this is not the case). How then, in Ireland, are there so many Nigerians seeking asylum here???

1. Simple. Someone, somewhere (Brussels, Or at the last meeting of the bilderdirgers, whatever), decided that in order for the advancement of the "New World Order" Europe must become a borderless region where distinct and separate cultures must atrophy and die. A good way to do this is to import hundreds of thousands of immigrants from outside the european sphere who"haven't a clue".
2. The Nigerians know a good thing when they see it!

So cheer up "Eire", You're well on the road of no return. To hell with history and culture and your own people and ancestors. You're making David Rockefeller very happy. After all it is in the name of "PROGRESS"

Croc

They are obliged to seek asylum in the "First" European Union country the arrive in.


Also until recently there we no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland.


Hope that answers you question Creagh

GuanYin

Croc wrote: »

They are obliged to seek asylum in the "First" European Union country the arrive in.


Also until recently there we no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland.


Hope that answers you question Creagh

It doesn't because it's wrong.

The 1996 Dublin convention is what you're looking at here and it merely dictates which member state is responsible for processing the asylum request, the obligation isn't with the refugee at all. And this is only envoked if it can be proven that the asylum seeker crossed through another member state.

In any case, Article 6 clearly states that the "first port" requirement is void if the asylum seeker has been living in the member state where they seek asylum for longer than 6 months. So many Nigerians may have entered Ireland, waited 6 months and then applied.

Croc

psi wrote: »

It doesn't because it's wrong.

The 1996 Dublin convention is what you're looking at here and it merely dictates which member state is responsible for processing the asylum request, the obligation isn't with the refugee at all. And this is only envoked if it can be proven that the asylum seeker crossed through another member state.

In any case, Article 6 clearly states that the "first port" requirement is void if the asylum seeker has been living in the member state where they seek asylum for longer than 6 months. So many Nigerians may have entered Ireland, waited 6 months and then applied.

I don't think that was the point of the question being asked by the op, not that i am disagreeing with what you say.

johnnyskeleton

Ever heard of a connecting flight?

A lot of the time they specifically want to come to Ireland because they have friends/family here, they have heard it was safe, or simply buy a flight to Ireland from wheverever they are from.

Apart from that, there's lots of reasons, most notably that they are here legitimately but apply for asylum due to a change of circumstances at home (e.g. change of government, other political problems).

Generally, refugees are required to make their application in the first safe country that they enter, but this depends a lot on the particular person.

Croc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ever heard of a connecting flight?

A lot of the time they specifically want to come to Ireland because they have friends/family here, they have heard it was safe, or simply buy a flight to Ireland from wheverever they are from.

Apart from that, there's lots of reasons, most notably that they are here legitimately but apply for asylum due to a change of circumstances at home (e.g. change of government, other political problems).

Generally, refugees are required to make their application in the first safe country that they enter, but this depends a lot on the particular person.

Duh !

Back to my original point "Until recently there were no direct flights from Nigeria to here". Therefore they should have applied for asylum in the first country they arrived at in the EU.

johnnyskeleton

Croc wrote: »

Duh !

Back to my original point "Until recently there were no direct flights from Nigeria to here". Therefore they should have applied for asylum in the first country they arrived at in the EU.

Art 7 Dublin Convention: The Member State responsible for controlling the entry of the alien into the territory of the Member States will be responsible for examining the application for asylum unless the alien first entered a Member State where the visa obligation is waived, before presenting an application for asylum in another Member State where the visa obligation is also waived;

This is subject to a number of other exceptions, but in any event, it is the country which the person first enters. If I get a connecting flight from Dublin to Sydney via Singapore, and I go straight from my aerlingus (or whatever) flight to Singapore to my Quantas flight to Australia, without ever actually entering into Singaporese territory. I might physically set foot on Singaporeseian soil, but I have not entered it's territory.

Hence connecting flights.

Croc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Art 7 Dublin Convention: The Member State responsible for controlling the entry of the alien into the territory of the Member States will be responsible for examining the application for asylum unless the alien first entered a Member State where the visa obligation is waived, before presenting an application for asylum in another Member State where the visa obligation is also waived;

This is subject to a number of other exceptions, but in any event, it is the country which the person first enters. If I get a connecting flight from Dublin to Sydney via Singapore, and I go straight from my aerlingus (or whatever) flight to Singapore to my Quantas flight to Australia, without ever actually entering into Singaporese territory. I might physically set foot on Singaporeseian soil, but I have not entered it's territory.

Hence connecting flights.

Firstly both of you are being very subjective in the portions of the Dublin Convention that you are quoting, it states as follows.

"If the applicant is in possession of one or more valid visas or visas that have expired, the Member State that issued it/them will be responsible for examining the asylum application (Article 5(2) to (4));"

"If it can be proved that the applicant for asylum irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air, having come from a non-member state, the Member State thus entered will be responsible, unless the applicant has been living in the Member State where the application for asylum was presented for at least six months before making the application (Article 6);"

As most of the applicants arrive here without any paperwork i.e. passports etc then you can take it they did not have a visa either so Article 5 does not apply.

As stated above most of them did not have a visa so they entered the first state in the EU illegally.
E.G Applicant gets on a plane from Nigeria to U.K. (where direct flights did exist) he\she has no visa to enter. The board a connecting flight to Ireland.

Therefore they enter U.K illegally hence the obligation falls on UK authorities to process the application.

mike4819

reports this morning claim many asylum seekers have been claiming benefits from the State despite living elsewhere.

The reports say a significant number of Nigerian nationals living and working in the UK have been travelling to the Republic via the North to illegitimately claim social welfare payments.

Chinese and Romanian nationals are also reportedly involved in substantial abuse of child benefit schemes, while one Chinese woman claimed thousands of euros from the State even though she was living in China.

Elsewhere, a Nigerian woman who claimed her life was in danger reportedly claimed €67,000 during a four-year period that she actually spent living in Nigeria.

A wealthy Albanian businessman also reportedly claimed asylum in Ireland solely to get medical treatment and returned home regularly to the country he claimed to be fleeing.

This morning's reports say the discovery of these scams has saved the State €25m, but investigators believe further fraudsters have yet to be detected.

The figure, however, pales in comparison to the €200m saved by the Department of Social and Family Affairs as a result of anti-fraud measures in the first half of last year alone.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWSNOJIDKFAU

johnnyskeleton

Croc wrote: »

Firstly both of you are being very subjective in the portions of the Dublin Convention that you are quoting, it states as follows.

"If the applicant is in possession of one or more valid visas or visas that have expired, the Member State that issued it/them will be responsible for examining the asylum application (Article 5(2) to (4));"

"If it can be proved that the applicant for asylum irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air, having come from a non-member state, the Member State thus entered will be responsible, unless the applicant has been living in the Member State where the application for asylum was presented for at least six months before making the application (Article 6);"

As most of the applicants arrive here without any paperwork i.e. passports etc then you can take it they did not have a visa either so Article 5 does not apply.

As stated above most of them did not have a visa so they entered the first state in the EU illegally.
E.G Applicant gets on a plane from Nigeria to U.K. (where direct flights did exist) he\she has no visa to enter. The board a connecting flight to Ireland.

Therefore they enter U.K illegally hence the obligation falls on UK authorities to process the application.

As I say, when someone lands in an airport they do not necessarily cross the border or enter into the territory of that state. So in your example if they never go through UK immigration, they never actually enter into the UK.

johnnyskeleton

mike4819 wrote: »

reports this morning claim many asylum seekers have been claiming benefits from the State despite living elsewhere.
...
The figure, however, pales in comparison to the €200m saved by the Department of Social and Family Affairs as a result of anti-fraud measures in the first half of last year alone.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWSNOJIDKFAU

Compared to the crimes committed by Irish citizens that's barely a drop in the ocean. So what's your point?

mike4819

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Compared to the crimes committed by Irish citizens that's barely a drop in the ocean. So what's your point?

How many duped,p.c. brainwashed,(to the point of perversity) self-hating Irish people there are!

Hobbes

Can we skip the obvious crap that some people are spouting. There is a difference between an Asylum seeker, Refugee and immigrants. No one has mentioned immigrant yet but certainly the other two seem to be loosely thrown around.

For example Mike48191 refers to Refugees, not asylum seekers. You should read up on the difference.

Also the comment referring to why can they claim asylum from Nigeria because it isn't wartorn, etc. That doesn't matter. There is at least one reported instance of a person from the USA claiming asylum in England a few years back and getting it.

Duh !

Back to my original point "Until recently there were no direct flights from Nigeria to here". Therefore they should have applied for asylum in the first country they arrived at in the EU.

What makes you think they all got thier connecting flight in the EU? Or passed through immigration in that EU country? Or if they didn't arrive on a boat? Even so PSI points out the system.

paulizei

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Why are there Nigerian refugees in Ireland at all?

• There is no civil war, major unrest in Nigeria at the present time. So why refugees?

Nigeria is a huge country run by a totally corrupt government with ethnic, religious, political and resource based conflicts going on all the time. Person on internet doesn't know what he's talking about shock.

bartholomewbinn

I have been reading this thread with a sense of foreboding and bemusement. A lot of the posters seem to by part of the nouveau pc brigade. For instance “Nigeria is a huge country run by a totally corrupt government with ethnic, religious, political and resource based conflicts going on all the time” what has that got to do with Ireland? Or “Also the comment referring to why can they claim asylum from Nigeria because it isn't wartorn, etc. That doesn't matter. There is at least one reported instance of a person from the USA claiming asylum in England a few years back and getting it.”
Does this mean that if I have a row with a drug dealing neighbour I can go to Australia or the united states and claim asylum there because my life is in danger? I don’t think so. Or, “if they didn't arrive on a boat? “please tell me what boats come directly to Ireland from Nigeria . It’s really time that we copped on and came down on top of so called asylum seekers like a ton of bricks. Let the word go out, Ireland is not a soft touch.
Again let me empathize, I am not talking about legal immigrants, just so called asylum seekers, and so called refugees.

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I am not talking about legal immigrants, just so called asylum seekers, and so called refugees.

You are in serious need of an introductory course in international migration law:
http://www.imldb.iom.int/section.do

bartholomewbinn

djpbarry wrote: »

You are in serious need of an introductory course in international migration law:
http://www.imldb.iom.int/section.do

Not really concerned what the law is, I am giving my opinion on what the law should be. It seems that the views of non pc types like me are not taken seriously.

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

It seems that the views of non pc types like me are not taken seriously.

Possibly because your view (non-pc is, ironically, a rather pc description in this case) would be in the extreme minority? The vast majority of people would be quite happy to help someone who is being persecuted for whatever reason, or who is in danger of torture or even death.

paulizei

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I have been reading this thread with a sense of foreboding and bemusement. A lot of the posters seem to by part of the nouveau pc brigade. For instance “Nigeria is a huge country run by a totally corrupt government with ethnic, religious, political and resource based conflicts going on all the time” what has that got to do with Ireland?

It was a response to the stupid question

There is no civil war, major unrest in Nigeria at the present time. So why refugees?"

Try doing a modicum of research before spouting rubbish.

inforfun

Interesting subject this.

I come from a (EU) country that had a government during the mid 90's till around 2002 that found it fit to take in 100.000 "asylumseekers" a year.
The system we had in those days was so open to corruption, the openings could be seen from dark mid Africa.
No one asked question how it could happen that at 1 point in 1 asylum seeker centre there was the guy claimed to be tortured in Afghanistan sharing the a room with the guy who suposedly tortured him.
Another example of how well we dealt with asylumseekers, Iranian woman enters the country claiming her life is in severe danger. After some time and a sexchange operation (costing €200.000 taxpayers money) he/she left to go back to Iran.



There is an entire industry in European countries relying on asylumseekers. Not because they need the labour of those people but it is to secure their own jobs. I am talking about lawyers and all kinds of social workers.

Ireland be careful with what you allow to enter your country because my own country now realises it has a problem they can not get rid of anymore.
People estimate that during the 90's about 85/90% of asylumseekers were not in danger and the only reason they made the trip was for economical reasons.

Now, before someone jumps on me and starts to blame me for the same. i did arrive one day and the next day i went to my job. Till this day i can not see any Irish person doing my job, apart from the odd one who might speak my native language.

And bartholomewbinn.... get used to be called a racist in discussions like these for speaking your (not pc) mind.
I did.

bartholomewbinn

paulizei wrote: »

It was a response to the stupid question
Try doing a modicum of research before spouting rubbish.

“Although the April 2003 elections were marred by some irregularities, Nigeria is currently experiencing its longest period of civilian rule since independence. General elections in April 2007 were considered significantly flawed by Nigerian and international observers but they marked the first civilian-to-civilian transfer of power in the country's history. President Umaru Musa YAR'ADUA took office on 29 May 2007.”

Not exactly a bed of roses, but no mention of civil war, major unrest or ethnic cleansing. You must be a very ignorant person to regard a view that doesn’t correspond to yours as rubbish.

bartholomewbinn

djpbarry wrote: »

Possibly because your view (non-pc is, ironically, a rather pc description in this case) would be in the extreme minority? The vast majority of people would be quite happy to help someone who is being persecuted for whatever reason, or who is in danger of torture or even death.

Your comment is a bit disingenuous. “The vast majority of people would be quite happy to help someone who is being persecuted for whatever reason, or who is in danger of torture or even death.” Of course they would, but the vast majority of people in this country also do not want us to be a haven for chancers and economic illegal migrants.

Zombrex

Creagh Caper wrote: »

A quick question that I'm sure has probably been debated before.

As far as i understand things, when a person is seeking asylum, they are supposed to go the nearest safest country (please let me know if this is not the case). How then, in Ireland, are there so many Nigerians seeking asylum here???

They (the asylum seeker) aren't supposed to do anything.

As Psi has already pointed out the Dublin Convention is nothing to do with the obligations of the asylum seeker. It is to do with how to handle disputes when two or more EU countries are refusing to process an application.

If there becomes a dispute over which EU country is supposed to handle an asylum seeker that applies for asylum in both countries (ie where both countries are saying "This is your problem") the responsibility defaults back to the first country they applied, in certain circumstances.

Nigerians can come here and apply for asylum if they wish. There is no obligation that if they pass through a EU airport or sea port they have to apply for asylum there instead.

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Why are there Nigerian refugees in Ireland at all?

• There is no civil war, major unrest in Nigeria at the present time. So why refugees?
• There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland; therefore they have to come through a third country.
• If they are asylum seekers /refugees why do they not seek asylum/refuge in the first safe country they landed in?

I am not referring to students or people here on work visas etc. (people that are legally here) only to people who have no valid reason to be here.

Perhaps you should ask them?

bartholomewbinn

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you should ask them?

What an extraordinary witty comment, are you perhaps distantly related to Oscar Wilde?

paulizei

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

“Although the April 2003 elections were marred by some irregularities, Nigeria is currently experiencing its longest period of civilian rule since independence. General elections in April 2007 were considered significantly flawed by Nigerian and international observers but they marked the first civilian-to-civilian transfer of power in the country's history. President Umaru Musa YAR'ADUA took office on 29 May 2007.”

Not exactly a bed of roses, but no mention of civil war, major unrest or ethnic cleansing. You must be a very ignorant person to regard a view that doesn’t correspond to yours as rubbish.

You need to try much harder tbh.

Hobbes

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

snip

Be aware that not everyone uses the plain white background so your post is for the most part unreadable or quotable. Not sure if that is intentional.

In answer to your question. Any one can claim asylum for whatever reason of persecution. Having it accepted is two different things. Your example would probably be rejected unless say the drug lords also owned the government.

I don't recall the exact details of the UK case but IIRC the reporter had claimed that he was being threatened with his life and his family after some story he did on the police. Federal police wouldn't help him so he could claim asylum.

As for the boat thing. Again, what makes you think the person got onto a boat in Nigeria? It is possible for the Nigerian to go to another country outside the EU via other transport and then to a boat.

bartholomewbinn

paulizei wrote: »

You need to try much harder tbh.

Yes, I am right, you are ignorant. No point in answering you again

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

What an extraordinary witty comment, are you perhaps distantly related to Oscar Wilde?

I was being serious. How do you expect to find out without talking to Nigerian asylum seekers?

Or would you just prefer to assume that what ever the reason it isn't one you approve of?

bartholomewbinn

Hobbes wrote: »

Be aware that not everyone uses the plain white background so your post is for the most part unreadable or quotable. Not sure if that is intentional.

In answer to your question. Any one can claim asylum for whatever reason of persecution. Having it accepted is two different things. Your example would probably be rejected unless say the drug lords also owned the government.

I don't recall the exact details of the UK case but IIRC the reporter had claimed that he was being threatened with his life and his family after some story he did on the police. Federal police wouldn't help him so he could claim asylum.

As for the boat thing. Again, what makes you think the person got onto a boat in Nigeria? It is possible for the Nigerian to go to another country outside the EU via other transport and then to a boat.

Sorry what do you mean, unreadable?

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Not exactly a bed of roses, but no mention of civil war, major unrest or ethnic cleansing. You must be a very ignorant person to regard a view that doesn’t correspond to yours as rubbish.

The US State Department rates Nigeria's human rights status as "poor" (that isn't good by the way)

The major areas where foreign asylum becomes necessary is due to a failing of the police and the legal system. Without a functioning, non-bias, uncorrupt police force it can become necessary for people to seek asylum in foreign countries.

Unfortunately Nigeria is particularly bad in these areas. The police force and the judiciary are considered by most Western States to be some of the most corrupt in Africa.

US Library of Congress Report on Nigeria - June 2006
"According to a March 2006 report by the U.S. Department of State, abuses by the Nigerian police, including the use of lethal force against suspects, are commonplace. In addition, in July 2005 Human Rights Watch issued a highly critical report on police torture and deaths in custody in Nigeria. The report found that attempts to reform the police had been largely symbolic and failed to address torture adequately."

This alone would be grounds for people to seek asylum (who protects you if the police and the law won't?)

But there is also sectarian striff in certain areas of the country

US Library of Congress Report on Nigeria - June 2006
"The two principal threats to domestic security are violence in the Niger Delta and sectarian strife between Muslims and Christians."

Despite your (rather ignorant) claims, there are plenty of reasons why a person would seek asylum from Nigeria in a different country

bartholomewbinn

Wicknight wrote: »

The US State Department rates Nigeria's human rights status as "poor" (that isn't good by the way)

The major areas where foreign asylum becomes necessary is due to a failing of the police and the legal system. Without a functioning, non-bias, uncorrupt police force it can become necessary for people to seek asylum in foreign countries.

Unfortunately Nigeria is particularly bad in these areas. The police force and the judiciary are considered by most Western States to be some of the most corrupt in Africa.

US Library of Congress Report on Nigeria - June 2006
"According to a March 2006 report by the U.S. Department of State, abuses by the Nigerian police, including the use of lethal force against suspects, are commonplace. In addition, in July 2005 Human Rights Watch issued a highly critical report on police torture and deaths in custody in Nigeria. The report found that attempts to reform the police had been largely symbolic and failed to address torture adequately."

This alone would be grounds for people to seek asylum (who protects you if the police and the law won't?)

But there is also sectarian striff in certain areas of the country

US Library of Congress Report on Nigeria - June 2006
"The two principal threats to domestic security are violence in the Niger Delta and sectarian strife between Muslims and Christians."

Despite your (rather ignorant) claims, there are plenty of reasons why a person would seek asylum from Nigeria in a different country

I see you have cherry picked a few very unsavoury points about Nigeria. But at the end of the day Nigeria is no worse and an awful lot better than most sub Saharan African countries. They are trying very hard to get their act together. And I am sure if your post was read by an official of the Nigerian embassy they would very soon decide who is being ignorant. Perhaps the US library of congress should take a closer look at the USA. Good day to you.

djpbarry

inforfun wrote: »

People estimate that during the 90's about 85/90% of asylumseekers were not in danger and the only reason they made the trip was for economical reasons.

I'm not sure what your sources are for this information, but anyway, taking 2005 as an example:

A total of 4,323 new asylum applications were received in Ireland. 455 applicants were recognised as refugees by the first instance comittee, 511 were recognised on appeal. The point is that most applications for asylum are actually rejected.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

...the vast majority of people in this country also do not want us to be a haven for chancers and economic illegal migrants.

Neither do I - what's your point?

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Nigeria is no worse and an awful lot better than most sub Saharan African countries. They are trying very hard to get their act together. And I am sure if your post was read by an official of the Nigerian embassy they would very soon decide who is being ignorant. Perhaps the US library of congress should take a closer look at the USA.

Perhaps you should do a little more research:
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Africa/Nigeria

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I see you have cherry picked a few very unsavoury points about Nigeria.

Yes I have, the ones that demonstrate why a person would flee the country seeking asylum some where else.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

But at the end of the day Nigeria is no worse and an awful lot better than most sub Saharan African countries.

That isn't true, not that it actually matters.

How "better or worse" Nigeria is compared to other African countries has no bearing on whether or not a person would have a legitimate reason to seek asylum from Nigeria.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

They are trying very hard to get their act together.

Apparently not that hard.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=nigeri

But again that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not someone could have a legitimate reason to seek asylum from that country. The very fact that they have to get their act together in the first place demonstrates the problem.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

And I am sure if your post was read by an official of the Nigerian embassy they would very soon decide who is being ignorant.

I would imagine that, being an official of the Nigerian government, they would toe the official government line, what ever that is.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Perhaps the US library of congress should take a closer look at the USA. Good day to you.

Perhaps you should stop making sweeping statements about Nigeria asylum seekers that are clearly contradicted by the facts.

inforfun

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure what your sources are for this information, but anyway, taking 2005 as an example:

A total of 4,323 new asylum applications were received in Ireland. 455 applicants were recognised as refugees by the first instance comittee, 511 were recognised on appeal. The point is that most applications for asylum are actually rejected.

I wasnt talking about Ireland but my home country with those figures i mentioned. And this was mid 90's till 2002.
During those day most applications were also rejected in my country but then came the army of well do'ers and started appeal after appeal.
This year they decided, that about 50.000 people whose application was rejected and all the appeals after were rejected, still can stay because it would be unhuman to send them back where they came from.

This decision will cost the taxpayer in my country 500 million euro.

bartholomewbinn

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes I have, the ones that demonstrate why a person would flee the country seeking asylum some where else.


That isn't true, not that it actually matters.

How "better or worse" Nigeria is compared to other African countries has no bearing on whether or not a person would have a legitimate reason to seek asylum from Nigeria.


Apparently not that hard.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=nigeri

But again that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not someone could have a legitimate reason to seek asylum from that country. The very fact that they have to get their act together in the first place demonstrates the problem.


I would imagine that, being an official of the Nigerian government, they would toe the official government line, what ever that is.



Perhaps you should stop making sweeping statements about Nigeria asylum seekers that are clearly contradicted by the facts.

Excuse me, I am not making sweeping statements about Nigeria, and if Nigeria is as awful a place as you make it out to be, Nigerians should be staying home and trying to sort out the mess, not running away from it. I am new to posting on these boards, but have been reading them for a long time. You and people like you get very upset when someone has a different viewpoint than you. And of course try to get them banned. That way you can have no one here except others who share your views.

Morlar

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Your comment is a bit disingenuous...

You should get used to recieving disingenous responses if you say anything non pc. Having your point of view mis-characterised and repeated back to you, also being made to deny saying things that you never said. This is before we even get to the new depths of pedantic-ness and splitting hairs over and over and over into infinity or until boredom sets in.

All signs of the overly vocal minority pc crowd not having a leg to stand on and trying to shout down anyone who expresses a non pc opinion that in reality the majority of the country would be in agreement with (going by the last and only referendum we had that related to the sphere of immigration and asylum).

I think the pc crowd think they are some kind of elite protecting the masses from their baser immigrant bashing instincts - whereas in reality its misguided idealism not based on the realities of life.

bartholomewbinn

Morlar wrote: »

You should get used to recieving disingenous responses if you say anything non pc. Having your point of view mis-characterised and repeated back to you, also being made to deny saying things that you never said. This is before we even get to the new depths of pedantic-ness and splitting hairs over and over and over into infinity or until boredom sets in.

All signs of the overly vocal minority pc crowd not having a leg to stand on and trying to shout down anyone who expresses a non pc opinion that in reality the majority of the country would be in agreement with (going by the last and only referendum we had that related to the sphere of immigration and asylum).

I think the pc crowd think they are some kind of elite protecting the masses from their baser immigrant bashing instincts - whereas in reality its misguided idealism not based on the realities of life.

Good god, some one un pc, normal and sensible. Wonders never cease.

Morlar

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Good god, some one un pc, normal and sensible. Wonders never cease.

My honest opinion is that there are a lot of non pc people on here (based on meeting some irl) its just that they are too afraid to step out of line as they would rather not have to deal with the kind of crap mentioned above.

djpbarry

inforfun wrote: »

I wasnt talking about Ireland but my home country with those figures i mentioned.

Yes, I know. I was just illustrating the fact that most asylum applications in Ireland are rejected.

Any chance you could tell us where you are from? I'd be interested in reading more about your country's history in this area.