Broken Asylum System - €1.4 million per application

Papad

A total of €2.26billion has been spent processing asylum claims and accommodating asylum seekers in the past seven years.

State-provided accommodation are costing the taxpayer over €13,700 per applicant every year in accommodation and social welfare alone.

A total of €2.26billion has been spent processing asylum claims and accommodating asylum seekers in the past seven years.

These are some of the numbers that appeared in the Irish Times today. Now that we finally have some numbers, is it not time to address this festering problem?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0722/breaking63.htm

Fratton Fred

how?

ei.sdraob

if these people were allowed to work and not made site on welfare ...


btw how much did US spend on Irish refugees over that last few hundred years, ahem ahem

Papad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how?

I am not American Indian, so your question needs to be more substantive.

ei.sdraob wrote:

btw how much did US spend on Irish refugees over that last few hundred years, ahem ahem

From what I can gather, NOTHING. But I note the deflection from the issue at hand.

topper75

Dogs in the street knew we had a problem.

However, even so, that figure seems awful high - what were the drivers behind that?

Admin? Accomm? Deportation? or sheer volume of applicants? Any breakdown?

Whole thing was a mystery to me all the time. We have obligations under UN membership but why were so many of these applicants from countries that aren't near us and from people who could clearly have claimed in another country en route to Ireland. If you are fleeing your homeland in fear of your life, passing through France and the UK to get here suggests a bogus asylum claim to me.

Fratton Fred

You asked a question

Papad wrote: »

Now that we finally have some numbers, is it not time to address this festering problem?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0722/breaking63.htm

I asked

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how?

meaning, maybe you could come up with a suggestion on how we can address this festering problem

you replied with

Papad wrote: »

I am not American Indian, so your question needs to be more substantive.

which suggest to me that although you are outraged by these figures, you have not thought through the issue at hand.

Papad

topper75 wrote: »

Whole thing was a mystery to me all the time.................. If you are fleeing your homeland in fear of your life, passing through France and the UK to get here suggests a bogus asylum claim to me.

I think it was designed to be a mystery. The costs were hidden for obvious reasons. Your last statement also represents part of the problem. Ireland can be fair in accepting legitimate asylum seekers, who have first been processed in the first European country they enter.

What we need is accountability, which we are not seeing. Maybe we should model our asylum process on the new Dutch model e.g. Asylum seekers arriving in the Netherlands via another EU country are not entitled to accommodation in reception centres.

Other ideas: There should be a waiting period after a person is granted asylum, where it is not possible to receive the maximum social welfare benefits (so that there will be concerted efforts to find work) and immediate deportation after the conviction of a criminal offense.

sceptre

You know it'd be, like, cool if you weren't all indulging in a penis size contest in this thread. Stop waving it around, it's unseemly. Pretend this is a discussion forum, that's what I like to do.

Eight years is too long for any application to be processed. Shorten it by a lot and we save lots of money. I'll let you guys talk about how to do that if you want to, I'll just be happier if you all act like adults while you're doing it.

topper75 wrote: »

Whole thing was a mystery to me all the time. We have obligations under UN membership but why were so many of these applicants from countries that aren't near us and from people who could clearly have claimed in another country en route to Ireland. If you are fleeing your homeland in fear of your life, passing through France and the UK to get here suggests a bogus asylum claim to me.

I'd suggest reading the more recent EU regulations on asylum. There's a really nice summary under the Politics charter thread (it's the third post). You're missing a few pertinent facts and the thread is likely to be far better for you and everyone else if you read that post (or the regulations, but the post is faster)


Adults people, please. I'll be blunt: I will smite you if you're not adult-like. Asylum threads tend to bring out the little idiot hidden inside so many people but this isn't the playground zone, don't treat it as though it is.

Fratton Fred

Papad wrote: »

I think it was designed to be a mystery. The costs were hidden for obvious reasons. Your last statement also represents part of the problem. Ireland can be fair in accepting legitimate asylum seekers, who have first been processed in the first European country they enter.

What we need is accountability, which we are not seeing. Maybe we should model our asylum process on the new Dutch model e.g. Asylum seekers arriving in the Netherlands via another EU country are not entitled to accommodation in reception centres.

Other ideas: There should be a waiting period after a person is granted asylum, where it is not possible to receive the maximum social welfare benefits (so that there will be concerted efforts to find work) and immediate deportation after the conviction of a criminal offense.

Sceptre summed it up nicely. Reduce the time to process an applicant and you cut the cost. asylum seekers have to be treated as genuine until proven otherwise, however, they are not yet accepted into the country, so providing them with benefits is the only option the government has. They are not legally entitled to work and if you gave them that right, then why not just abolish any immigrations rules the country has.

I would hazard a guess and say that the cost of welfare tpe benefits are only part of the problem, the biggest element of the cost I would suggest is the cost of the civil servants processing the claim and investigating the application. If this can be done quicker, then it stands to reason that the overall cost can be reduced.

ei.sdraob

I think it was discussed in another parallel thread

why does it take 3years+ for naturalization process when it takes 3months across the irish sea?

im sure assylum applications has same lame processing time while the bureaucrats (who have nice wages and pensions) shuffle paper around in the dept. of justice

the problem is not immigration it the bloat in a certain sector, in other EU countries they manage just fine

deadhead13

Asylum applications for the 7 years in question

2002 11,634
2003 7,900
2004 4,766
2005 4,323
2006 4,314
2007 3,985
2008 3,866

These are applications, the number that are sucessful going on last years figures are about 1 in 4. The immigation, residence and protection bill 2008 was drafted to address the question of the time taken and cost of the application process.

thebman

Maybe they could get one of those computer type things I've been hearing about to help process them there applications :P

I think I found the problem.

Papad

You would have to wonder why there isn't outrage when there is an estimate of €1.4 Million per asylum applicant. Maybe it's still a taboo subject "You can't talk about black babies like that". (I know not all applicants are black).

Some skeptics would say: "Let's do this. Give them half a million each when they first apply, and we (the tax payers) will be making out like bandits".

The unfortunate assumption in all of this, because of past fraud, is that the majority of these cases are bogus to begin with. And I say that with a heavy heart thinking about genuine cases who cannot reach our shores and deserve our protection.

sceptre

Papad wrote: »

You would have to wonder why there isn't outrage when there is an estimate of €1.4 Million per asylum applicant. Maybe it's still a taboo subject "You can't talk about black babies like that". (I know not all applicants are black).

Maybe there's an overly PC atmosphere. Having said that, I've my doubts given the complaints I've heard on some city streets which don't hold back on slating someone's colour, creed or nationality. Plus people here feeling free to take a side on immigration issues in general and I doubt that all of them are mere keyboard warriors who hide their opinions in person.

1.4 million per application is nuts if 1.4 million is accurate. Seriously, nuts.

But I'm getting a few different figures depending on what I divide by what and at least one result appears to be 10% of that but I'm a bit dozey at the moment (blood donation trip) so maybe I'm making a pig's ear of it.

Assuming the figure of €13700 per year (stated in the article) is accurate and the processing time of 7 years is accurate, that's a complete state cost of €95,900 over the seven years per person. Ignore the rights or wrongs of that for a moment. If the total is 1.4 million per person, that means that legal fees and office admin and paperclips amount to €1,304,100 per application. That seems a bit nutty, doesn't it? Does anyone think that this sounds wrong in the incorrect sense rather than the "like, so wrong, man" sense?

I'd honestly like to see verification of this total of 2.26 billion euros as I can't make it fit - OK, 300 million per year is 2.1 billion over 7 years (let's ignore that it says "since 2002", which would be six years). 300 million divided by the current total of 14131 people (ignoring that the number is decreasing) is €21,229 per year, which sort of half adds up but I can't make 1.4 million per person or anywhere near it then (21229*7 is about 150,000 per person over the 7 years expected to wait).

On the other hand, if the total figure of 2.26 billion euros is correct, I'd love to see where it's going as I still can't make it add up.

Of course, you can still argue that €150,000 per application is too high and it would still be too high in my opinion if that was the figure. And again, the key appears to be the seven year wait, which is nuts anyway.

I'm not advancing the case for a shorter wait before the decision by the way, I reckon I don't have to as it's obvious, but I would really appreciate it if anyone could make all the figures add up. Because with my currently hazy head, I can't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zambia

At 1.4 Millon a head imagine the internment camp I cold hearted f**ker like me could build.

Application -> Internment -> Processing -> Decision -> Deportation Or integration

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would hazard a guess and say that the cost of welfare tpe benefits are only part of the problem, the biggest element of the cost I would suggest is the cost of the civil servants processing the claim and investigating the application. If this can be done quicker, then it stands to reason that the overall cost can be reduced.

My understanding of the cost is mostly from cases having to be taken to the high court because the INIS refuses ALL cases initially and forces everyone to appeal.
All cases should be treated as legitimate untill proven otherwise but the INIS has turned it on its head.

topper75

sovtek wrote: »

All cases should be treated as legitimate untill proven otherwise but the INIS has turned it on its head.

What do you mean by this? That all asylum seekers should be just told - off you go now - you're a refugee. And THEN their file gets looked at by INIS?

siobhank

they are working on it.
Problem is that the appeals aren't being heard quick enough which led to a huge backlog and increase of people hanging out in the hostels waiting on their appeals being added to the new influx etc etc
They have hired 40 lawyers to clear up this backlog of appeals. Once the appeal is heard, all refusals are then moved closer to deportation channels and so on so the system is beginning to start flowing again. It will take a few months.
Then of course the hostels will return to the transient numbers and as asylum applicants are steadily decreasing by year it should cost the State a lot less in the future.

sovtek

topper75 wrote: »

What do you mean by this? That all asylum seekers should be just told - off you go now - you're a refugee. And THEN their file gets looked at by INIS?

:rolleyes:

opo

sovtek wrote: »

My understanding of the cost is mostly from cases having to be taken to the high court because the INIS refuses ALL cases initially and forces everyone to appeal.
All cases should be treated as legitimate untill proven otherwise but the INIS has turned it on its head.

Absolute rubbish.

Perhaps you have not realised that noone appeals a succesfull application in the first instance and secondly, there is an appeal mechanism.

It is that mechanism that comes into play before the courts ever get involved.

It is the legal system that is being rampantly abused and it is the legal system that is ramping up the delays and the costs.

And it is a legal problem that must and will be sorted out. And not one less person will be granted refugee status for it.

ParkRunner

http://www.courts.ie/legaldiary.nsf/a29e83d32296b62f80256c590060acda/576f63ef38b4b81f802575fb002f9b8a?OpenDocument

Today's asylum High Court list of the number of decisions challenged in the asylum process which are just awaiting a hearing date in Court. This to some extent explains the huge cost in having to defend each and every case and the inevitable delays in bringing files to a final conclusion. The solicitors are going after the State in any way they can with no conveyancing work or personal injuries cases anymore

pearcider

Today's asylum High Court list of the number of decisions challenged in the asylum process which are just awaiting a hearing date in Court. This to some extent explains the huge cost in having to defend each and every case and the inevitable delays in bringing files to a final conclusion. The solicitors are going after the State in any way they can with no conveyancing work or personal injuries cases anymore

Nail on head. The sad fact is most of the money is going on legal fees. :rolleyes:

Sizzler

When you see cases like this you can see why the numbers are so high :rolleyes:

Absolutely ridiculous stuff.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/euro152k--the-bill-for-deporting-just-one-man-1832411.html

wrote:

By Cormac Looney


Tuesday July 21 2009

The state has spent €152,000 deporting just one illegal immigrant to Ghana.

This massive six-figure bill was revealed by Justice Minister Dermot Ahern, who confirmed it was the biggest single spend for one individual's deportation last year.

The man was deported from Dublin to Ghana, in west Africa -- escorted by gardai -- on March 11, 2008, at a cost to the taxpayer of €151,900.

But the actual cost of the deportation is likely to be even higher, because the sum does not include garda overtime or subsistence payments, which have not been disclosed.

The Ghanaian deportation cost was 26 times the average cost of deporting an illegal from Ireland last year, which stood at €5,758, according to new figures. In total, 161 deportation orders were executed last year.

Details of the highest cost of a single deportation case to date this year have also been released. A man was transported to Georgia on March 27 last at a cost of €35,888.

This figure was 13 times the average €2,629 it cost to export an illegal immigrant or failed asylum applicant from the country this year.


Halved

The cost of deporting an individual has halved over the past 12 months, but the numbers set to be deported from Ireland this year are likely to top 200, up on last year's 161, according to the new figures.

Deportation orders are put in place to remove individuals from the State if they are discovered to have been illegal immigrants or if their asylum applications have been refused. Most cases processed involve those who have applied for asylum and failed to obtain it.

The deportations have been carried out on both charter and commercial flights, and the figures include the cost of deporting the individual and the travel cost of the garda or gardai who must accompany them.

The officers are stationed with the Garda National Immigration Bureau.

The most recent deportation occurred just over a fortnight ago when 32 failed asylum-seekers were deported to Nigeria.

The group of men, women and children were put on a chartered plane that had arrived in Dublin from Stansted in London. One of those deported was a convicted drug dealer.

opo

Sizzler wrote: »

When you see cases like this you can see why the numbers are so high :rolleyes:

Absolutely ridiculous stuff.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/euro152k--the-bill-for-deporting-just-one-man-1832411.html

Frankly, focusing exclusively on the cost of removing indiduals with no right or reason to be here and who beligerantly resist all attempts to leave, is completely missing the point.

Sizzler

opo wrote: »

Frankly, focusing exclusively on the cost of removing indiduals with no right or reason to be here and who beligerantly resist all attempts to leave, is completely missing the point.

Frankly, trying to detract from published numbers for costs in respect of the failure of the collective asylum "system" is missing the point.

djpbarry

Sizzler wrote: »

When you see cases like this you can see why the numbers are so high :rolleyes:

Absolutely ridiculous stuff.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/euro152k--the-bill-for-deporting-just-one-man-1832411.html

I've only glanced over the article, but it doesn't seem to state that the individual in question was a failed asylum seeker? Seems he was an illegal immigrant?

Sizzler

djpbarry wrote: »

I've only glanced over the article, but it doesn't seem to state that the individual in question was a failed asylum seeker? Seems he was an illegal immigrant?

Its implied imho.

Its fair to say if he was randomly identified on the street and had no right to be here then he would apply for asylum post haste.

Maybe fire off an email to Berties bro for clarification!

opo

djpbarry wrote: »

I've only glanced over the article, but it doesn't seem to state that the individual in question was a failed asylum seeker? Seems he was an illegal immigrant?

You may well be right. In which case, the costs would be in addition to the money squandering asylum seeking debacle.

Victor

Zambia232 wrote: »

At 1.4 Millon a head

Its not. Its 40,000 applications over the last 7 years.

€2.26billion / 40,000 = €56,500

walrusgumble

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if these people were allowed to work and not made site on welfare ...


btw how much did US spend on Irish refugees over that last few hundred years, ahem ahem

the same could be asked about how much the US spent on german, french and chinese "refugees".

I take it that you are aware of what refugee/ asylum is? i take it you are aware that its were one applies for "protection" or refuge because their country of origin is not safe, and one has being persecuted. refugee is not, nor has it ever being about being a module to allow economic migrants in.

please don't confuse asylum / refugee with economic emigration/immigration.

walrusgumble

Papad wrote: »

I think it was designed to be a mystery. The costs were hidden for obvious reasons. Your last statement also represents part of the problem. Ireland can be fair in accepting legitimate asylum seekers, who have first been processed in the first European country they enter.

What we need is accountability, which we are not seeing. Maybe we should model our asylum process on the new Dutch model e.g. Asylum seekers arriving in the Netherlands via another EU country are not entitled to accommodation in reception centres.

Other ideas: There should be a waiting period after a person is granted asylum, where it is not possible to receive the maximum social welfare benefits (so that there will be concerted efforts to find work) and immediate deportation after the conviction of a criminal offense.

one of the problems lies with the supposed fact that once the asylum seeker has being refused refugee status and has used up all avenues they are no longer entitled to the small benefits from the state (eg allowance, accommodation)

Yes they are allowed to make leave to remain /subsidiary protection applicaions after, and, rightly so. (definition of refugee is very very narrow - some countries like afghanistan, somalia, iraq - one could not possibly send people home - even if they personally did not suffer enough to fall into the term persecution)

the problem is that when one does a leave to remain, they are waiting a further year or more in the country (on top of possibly 1 year during the asylum process and another 1-2 years high court actions, and a further 1 year if that high court action was successful) - delays due to administrative problems in the department - which are going to get worse - this area is extremely labour intensive due to research of country of origin information, so granted it takes time.

some of the problems as you pointed are accountability. there decision makers don't have published guidlines on how they consider cases, its was only in recent times that publication of past decisions were available to certain groups, are the decision makers continously receiving up to date training.

the residence and immigration bill wants to the asylum and leave to remain process stremlined - a one stop stop. that sounds sensible but it needs to make sure that all the cogs in the machine are in top order and it needs to be independent from the department of justice.

as for the criminal offences - how serious could the offences be in order to be immediately deported? road traffic offences, summary offences? (taking for granted serious offences would tick the boxes)

its my understanding that when the state find out about criminal offences they inform the non eu/non irish person that there residency is going to be revoked. they then via section 3 of the immigration act 1999 as amended are invited to make representations as to why they should not be revoked.

if i can ask one question: what happens where a person who has actually being granted refugee status, - thus in practice does not really have a nationality anymore as they can no longer return to their country of origin (assuming that country is still in the toilet), be deported?

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sceptre summed it up nicely. Reduce the time to process an applicant and you cut the cost. asylum seekers have to be treated as genuine until proven otherwise, however, they are not yet accepted into the country, so providing them with benefits is the only option the government has. They are not legally entitled to work and if you gave them that right, then why not just abolish any immigrations rules the country has.

I would hazard a guess and say that the cost of welfare tpe benefits are only part of the problem, the biggest element of the cost I would suggest is the cost of the civil servants processing the claim and investigating the application. If this can be done quicker, then it stands to reason that the overall cost can be reduced.

i am sure you would accept that there is an important balance between getting the job done quickly vs getting the job done once and done right, fair and in respect to the international laws in this area - thus even reduce causes for attempting to go to the high court to challenge (assuming lawyers are not chancers and are not interested in bringing no hoper cases to the courts as they and only they loose out in the work done)

yes, i agree much can be done about getting the work load done. in fairness i don't envy the civil servants here they have a lot a pressure here - how trained are they in this area as it is truelly a newish world that ireland are only picking up on.

opo

walrusgumble wrote: »

if i can ask one question: what happens where a person who has actually being granted refugee status, - thus in practice does not really have a nationality anymore as they can no longer return to their country of origin (assuming that country is still in the toilet), be deported?

2 part answer:

(1) Refugee status has no bearing on nationality per se. No change in nationality is required to enjoy the relevant protections.

(2) We don't deport refugees.

opo

walrusgumble wrote: »

i am sure you would accept that there is an important balance between getting the job done quickly vs getting the job done once and done right, fair and in respect to the international laws in this area - thus even reduce causes for attempting to go to the high court to challenge (assuming lawyers are not chancers and are not interested in bringing no hoper cases to the courts as they and only they loose out in the work done)
.

I think the paucity of sucessfull cases tells its own story.

walrusgumble

opo wrote: »

2 part answer:

(1) Refugee status has no bearing on nationality per se. No change in nationality is required to enjoy the relevant protections.

(2) We don't deport refugees.

sorry there, i messed up constructing my question clearly. i was referring to a comment about automatically deporting non nationals. my question were suppose to be - what would one do if a refugee committed serious offence. how could one be deported? sorry that question was very badly constructed (jesus) ye i know nationality has no bearing - unless of course it was a reason for persecution (seperate matter).

my point was you cant just think, grand, you committed an offence, your deported, refugee was an example. and as you pointed you cant deport them, as basically there are two problems (a) in effect no citizenship anyone as you cant return to country of origin due to the persecution, so where else could one return them too, they have no where to go (b) and of course, its not safe to go back home.

as for deporting other non nationals who committed offences be they serious or minor offences, it may not be a straight forward to legally remove them as some cases in the european court of human rights have shown.

walrusgumble

opo wrote: »

I think the paucity of sucessfull cases tells its own story.

what about the amount of cases that are conceeded/settled out of court by the state?

sceptre

opo wrote: »

I think the paucity of sucessfull cases tells its own story.

What's that number and/or percentage again?

walrusgumble wrote: »

what about the amount of cases that are conceeded/settled out of court by the state?

What amount of those are there?

At least one of you guys has a round number, yeah?

opo

sceptre wrote: »

What's that number and/or percentage again?


What amount of those are there?

At least one of you guys has a round number, yeah?

I have the word of the minister:

The major delays in settling and dealing with asylum applications at the moment is principally focused on the legal challenges that are being taken by a very active and voracious group of barristers down in the Bar library who are representing clients virtually on a 'no foal, no fee' basis," he said.

Vulnerable asylum seekers were being given unrealistic hopes by some lawyers when in most cases their chances of a successful appeal were limited, he continued.

http://news.myhome.ie/newspaper/front/2008/0104/1199313419896.html

You can also wile away a few hours reviewing cases on http://www.bailii.org to get a flavour of the levels of failure of the published noteworthy cases. You will find sucessfull cases to be a minority there too.

It would be canon fodder for every ambulance chaser running around after failed asylum applicants to trumpet great success rates achieved vis a vis Judicial Review and the great need to hurl ever more taxpayer cash into this ballooning field. Instead, we get silence or the usual crocodile tears feigning compassion for their precious "clients" and their "rights" rather than their own wallets.

It would also be prime ammunition for resisting the planned move to shift costs to legal representatives in the belated immigration bill in vexatious cases.

But by all means, come back and refute my assertion that the majority of cases fail should you have something of substance to offer.

cabinteelytom

Extending residence to non-nationals and protecting them from their own government's attempts to have them returned, is a power that only an independent state can exercise; and which States have been very reluctant to delegate to quangos, devolved administrations, international bodies etc. A famous example would be Lenin in Zurich.
The Geneva Convention 1951 (www.unhchr.ch/htm/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm) , and it's follow-up New York Protocol 1967 (www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_p_ref.htm) have sought to harness this State power to a humanitarian purpose, and have prescribed persons to whom States should offer [residence and] protection; and that decision by a State then changes that person from an asylum seeker to a 'refugee'.
The Convention and the Protocol have both been signed voluntarily by the Republic Of Ireland, which can also denounce either or both of these documents 'at any time', with effect one year later.

The EU asks of a Member State that they have procedures (which conform to certain specified [high] standards) for the Government to follow, as it makes these decisions, and, if the Government decides against granting asylum the 'Member State must guarantee applicants for asylum an effective right of appeal before a court.' (See 'Minimum standards of procedures for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status' http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/133140_en.htm)
[I think these minimum standards for procedures apply to Ireland, although Ireland and the UK have opted out of a common asylum system since the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999.]

The above is, I think , a minimum for understanding the obligations Ireland has entered into.

sceptre

opo wrote: »

I have the word of the minister

Well, it's better than nothing, even without an actual number, assuming the Justice Minister reads more reports than his Finance colleague.

Walrusgrumble, have you got anything similar on what I assume is the opposing side?

opo

sceptre wrote: »

Well, it's better than nothing, even without an actual number, assuming the Justice Minister reads more reports than his Finance colleague.

Walrusgrumble, have you got anything similar on what I assume is the opposing side?

Have you anything to offer yourself?

Or are you trying to find a purpose for yourself on this thread?

ParkRunner

walrusgumble wrote: »

as for deporting other non nationals who committed offences be they serious or minor offences, it may not be a straight forward to legally remove them as some cases in the european court of human rights have shown.

The House of Lords had to ruled on an English case there recently where the British authorities were trying to deport the London underground bombers back to Afghanistan, where there is a high risk of suffering persecution. The British government got assurances from their Afghan counterparts that the applicant's would come to no harm and the House of Lords ruled in favour of the British authorities.

sceptre

opo wrote: »

Have you anything to offer yourself?

Or are you trying to find a purpose for yourself on this thread?

I'm one of the forum moderators.

In other words, I'm the guy who occasionally drops in to ask people why they're making assertions with little more than hearsay. To be fair I often do that to both sides. I always have a purpose on the thread.

No-one needs to bring a big cake to the discussion as payment just so they can ask people to back up what they've been saying. Any member could do likewise.

dodgyme

More articles in todays paper on bogus bids. The costs are not surprising.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bogus-bid-for-asylum-by-cricket-team-gets-hit-for-six-1842118.html

I particularly like this one

"A case before the High Court in Dublin heard that a female Nigerian national had arrived here in 2000 and claimed asylum on the grounds that she was being persecuted in her home country. She said she had no passport. The next month she gave birth, withdrew her asylum claim and applied for permission to remain as the mother of an Irish citizen infant.

Her application was accompanied by a passport.

In August 2001, she was granted conditional permission to stay and care for her child.

In August 2006 she was interviewed by a British immigration officer as she tried to travel by sea to the UK from Ireland. She produced two Nigerian passports, which contained a number of visas and were valid for the same period.

A search of her handbag produced another passport, her fourth, which overlapped with the first document. Both were valid for the time when she claimed she had no passport.

She told the UK officer she spent only a few weeks of every year visiting Ireland and lived mainly in Nigeria, where she ran a hotel with her husband. She was returned by ship to Ireland where she was refused leave to land and then detained.

The lawfulness of her detention was subsequently challenged in the High Court, which found it was lawful. Other scams included:


•A Nigerian woman living in Kerry with five children was found to be claiming €760 a week in benefits. Her husband was detected in Belfast on his way to visit her and admitted owning a business in Lagos.
•Last March, immigration officials discovered visa applications had been made by a number of Pakistani nationals with fraudulent documentation.
•An investigation is under way into a racket where non EU nationals, legally living here, are claiming benefit for a child residing outside the State. Most of the cases uncovered by officials involve Chinese nationals. Between October and April, about 130 cases of benefit abuse, totalling €230,000, were uncovered"

opo

sceptre wrote: »

I'm one of the forum moderators.

In other words, I'm the guy who occasionally drops in to ask people why they're making assertions with little more than hearsay. To be fair I often do that to both sides. I always have a purpose on the thread.

No-one needs to bring a big cake to the discussion as payment just so they can ask people to back up what they've been saying. Any member could do likewise.

I appreciate your role. What I am curious about now is your casual reference to sometimes treating both sides equally as though this is a bonus rather than a prerequisite for moderating on this or any forum.

GuanYin

opo wrote: »

I appreciate your role. What I am curious about now is your casual reference to sometimes treating both sides equally as though this is a bonus rather than a prerequisite for moderating on this or any forum.

opo, can you please read the forum rules here, with specific reference to discussing moderation in a thread. As you will see, the ONLY place to do that in this forum is in this thread.


Now please, only ON TOPIC discussion here please. Do not reply to this post in this thread.

GY

opo

EF wrote: »

The House of Lords had to ruled on an English case there recently where the British authorities were trying to deport the London underground bombers back to Afghanistan, where there is a high risk of suffering persecution. The British government got assurances from their Afghan counterparts that the applicant's would come to no harm and the House of Lords ruled in favour of the British authorities.

Yes, this just underlines the "human rights" fiasco.

The undying concern for the fate of those who would murder and maim their own citizens in a heartbeat, that they would be in any way discommoded for returning home.

walrusgumble

EF wrote: »

The House of Lords had to ruled on an English case there recently where the British authorities were trying to deport the London underground bombers back to Afghanistan, where there is a high risk of suffering persecution. The British government got assurances from their Afghan counterparts that the applicant's would come to no harm and the House of Lords ruled in favour of the British authorities.

were those lads granted refugee status?

fair enough, not all refugees are terrorists though.

on a horribly and possibly uncalled for note, some of the underground bombers might be given a heros welcome back to afghanistan by some quarter.

could you provide a link to the judgement or news article, sounds like an interersting case.

ParkRunner

walrusgumble wrote: »

were those lads granted refugee status?

fair enough, not all refugees are terrorists though.

on a horribly and possibly uncalled for note, some of the underground bombers might be given a heros welcome back to afghanistan by some quarter.

could you provide a link to the judgement or news article, sounds like an interersting case.

I can't quite find it now but here's a similar case where the Uk authorities sought assurances from the Algerian and Jordanian authorities that the applicants (who were deemed to pose a threat to national security) would not be harmed if returned home. It's a lengthy judgment!

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/499be5b92.pdf

cabinteelytom

Options open to the Republic of Ireland at this time are:

Deportation of unsuccessful asylum claimants immediately after; the Government has made a decision not to offer asylum, plus the one appeal to a court envisaged by the Geneva Convention. Such clarity would prevent years of frustration, and much cost; but would require some confidence in it's own decisions by the Irish Government

Reduce the incentive to seek 'subsidiary protection' by those who will not become recognised refugees eg Ireland should increase the disparity between the entitlements of refugees (in short, persecuted people) and people who are unfortunate (misgoverned or experiencing anarchy in their own country).
(The European Commission has been urging Member States to move in the opposite direction and give a 'beneficiary of susidiary protection' entitlements as near as possible to those of a refugee, and both to have entitlements as near as possible to those of a Citizen of the Member State. But there have been doubts about the logic of these aims, and their likely consequences upon asylum seeking behaviour and upon the sympathy of host communities, and such policies have been slowly adopted by Member States.)
Incentives Ireland could drop could be; 'family reunification' [in our state]- (instead each family member should make his own claim upon our goodwill), and the expectation of permanence and naturalisation (subsidiary protection should be an explicitly temporary status, which will be withdrawn when regime change, or ordinary human progress, takes place in the home country).