Desperate Migrants Getting Kicked Out.....

creeper1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MVSaOOsik&feature=related

I thought I would share this. People are risking their lives, jumping on trucks, taking boats across perilous seas and paying smugglers all to get into Europe and the UK. I know if they had the chance they would make their way to Ireland.

Kinda puts our situation into perspective.

I guess this is a difficult moral conundrum. While I accept we dont need more people with our unemployment so high these people are desperate and need some kind of help.

Rb

Um, I'm fairly sure we need to reduce to immigration here, rather than giving it to people who probably couldn't even work here.

creeper1

Rb wrote: »

Um, I'm fairly sure we need to reduce to immigration here, rather than giving it to people who probably couldn't even work here.

Well you can't question the motivation of a guy who survives the sinking of a boat in the mediteranian and clings on for dear life but still can't find a job when he makes it to Italy.

We need to clamp down on those people smugglers. Help Africa develop and advise them to limit the number of babies they have. The resources of the planet can't cope with the number of humans we are having.

ParkRunner

creeper1 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MVSaOOsik&feature=related

I thought I would share this. People are risking their lives, jumping on trucks, taking boats across perilous seas and paying smugglers all to get into Europe and the UK. I know if they had the chance they would make their way to Ireland.

Kinda puts our situation into perspective.

I guess this is a difficult moral conundrum. While I accept we dont need more people with our unemployment so high these people are desperate and need some kind of help.

Why don't they apply for asylum when they reach Calais, if they are genuinely fleeing persecution?

Dr_Phil

creeper1 wrote: »

We need to clamp down on those people smugglers. Help Africa develop and advise them to limit the number of babies they have.

They have to want to change their place themselves... We don't help by giving money and teaching them that "the white men" will feed them, as it will not last forever. Give a fishing rod, not the fish.

dvpower

EF wrote: »

Why don't they apply for asylum when they reach Calais, if they are genuinely fleeing persecution?

I doubt that many of them are genuinely fleeing persecution, but their economic situation at home must be desperately bad if they are willing to risk their lives getting to the EU. They probably have a badly conceived idea about what life in the EU for an illegal immigrant is like.

Once they get to Calais, they probably figure that one more hop into the UK is worth the extra effort. There must be better job opportunities etc in the UK.

dvpower

Rb wrote: »

Um, I'm fairly sure we need to reduce to immigration here, rather than giving it to people who probably couldn't even work here.

... and the best way of doing that is to first understand what motivates illegals to come here.

Guy:Incognito

dvpower wrote: »

... and the best way of doing that is to first understand what motivates illegals to come here.

€?

they obviously feel hey can get more of it here than elsewhere or at home.

dvpower

Stekelly wrote: »

they obviously feel hey can get more of it here than elsewhere or at home.

Clearly.
And often they are wrong. They hear stories back home the Europe is a land of milk and honey. When they get here they discover that it just isn't so.

The British Government has long been running ad campaigns abroad try and discourage illegal immigration by giving them some of the hard facts in place of the myths that they currently have.

anymore

creeper1 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MVSaOOsik&feature=related

I thought I would share this. People are risking their lives, jumping on trucks, taking boats across perilous seas and paying smugglers all to get into Europe and the UK. I know if they had the chance they would make their way to Ireland.

Kinda puts our situation into perspective.

I guess this is a difficult moral conundrum. While I accept we dont need more people with our unemployment so high these people are desperate and need some kind of help.

I dont qualify for a single one of the benefits these ' Calais benefit tourists' would get if they came to Ireland. Yes it does putt it into perspective.

anymore

dvpower wrote: »

I doubt that many of them are genuinely fleeing persecution, but their economic situation at home must be desperately bad if they are willing to risk their lives getting to the EU. They probably have a badly conceived idea about what life in the EU for an illegal immigrant is like.

Once they get to Calais, they probably figure that one more hop into the UK is worth the extra effort. There must be better job opportunities etc in the UK.

If thier lifes were that desperate, they would stop in the first european country they landed in instead of embarking on the Euro Benefits Tour'

Nationalist

anymore wrote: »

If thier lifes were that desperate, they would stop in the first european country they landed in instead of embarking on the Euro Benefits Tour'

Too true, as a matter of fact, every Nigerian asylum seeker in Ireland is actually illegal due to EU asylum law. Asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first country they reach after they leave their homeland. There are no direct plane or ferry routes from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore every Nigerian asylum seeker here came from another EU country so is automatically breaking that law.

INB4 "RAAAAAAAAAAAACIST"

walshb

dvpower wrote: »

Clearly.
And often they are wrong. They hear stories back home the Europe is a land of milk and honey. When they get here they discover that it just isn't so.

The British Government has long been running ad campaigns abroad try and discourage illegal immigration by giving them some of the hard facts in place of the myths that they currently have.

Well they aren't going thru all that trouble to get here based on "stories back home the Europe."

Milk and Honey it is, at least compard to what they are used to. And they are bypassing other
Euro countries to get to this one. Now, that isn't them being naive, stupid or misinformed, I tell you.

djpbarry

anymore wrote: »

I dont qualify for a single one of the benefits these ' Calais benefit tourists' would get if they came to Ireland.

Name one benefit that an immigrant is entitled to that an Irish citizen is not.

Rebelheart

creeper1 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MVSaOOsik&feature=related

I thought I would share this. People are risking their lives, jumping on trucks, taking boats across perilous seas and paying smugglers all to get into Europe and the UK. I know if they had the chance they would make their way to Ireland.

Kinda puts our situation into perspective.

I guess this is a difficult moral conundrum. While I accept we dont need more people with our unemployment so high these people are desperate and need some kind of help.

Proof, if ever it were needed, that the vast, vast majority of people in Ireland, Britain, France etc are nationalists first. After all, is anybody advocating the removal of borders and allowing anybody entry into their respective sovereign states (which, of course, includes the EU)?

It's all a bit hypocritical for people to condemn "nationalist" views of the world when they, too, want to restrict boundaries and forbid other humans from enjoying rights within those boundaries.

Bigdeadlydave

anymore wrote: »

If thier lifes were that desperate, they would stop in the first european country they landed in instead of embarking on the Euro Benefits Tour'

Exactly. Well said.

These people are claiming benefits in multiple countries.(a lot of them anyway)

IrishManSaipan

We are all very lucky to be born on this little rock. That said, we simply cannot afford to allow the world and its mother migrate into europe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

djpbarry

Rebelheart wrote: »

It's all a bit hypocritical for people to condemn "nationalist" views of the world when they, too, want to restrict boundaries and forbid other humans from enjoying rights within those boundaries.

There’s absolutely nothing hypocritical in criticising certain nationalist views (such as the extreme views of the BNP, for example) while recognising the existence of international borders.

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

These people are claiming benefits in multiple countries.(a lot of them anyway)

And free cars too. Don’t forget the free cars.

Rebelheart

djpbarry wrote: »

There’s absolutely nothing hypocritical in criticising certain nationalist views (such as the extreme views of the BNP, for example) while recognising the existence of international borders.
And free cars too. Don’t forget the free cars.

What makes them "extreme", when "mainstream" views rely upon the same discrimination and prejudice as the basis for mainstream immigration policies? If anything, mainstream policies, by virtue of sharing the same nationalist foundations as "extreme" parties, give solace to the latter.

If humans all genuinely subscribe to ideas such as all humans being equal, there is no moral basis for man-made borders, "international" or otherwise. In comparison to the so-called "extremists", it's merely a different brand of the selective nationalism which marks all nationalisms: "mainstream" nationalism is not morally superior humanity.

Scofflaw

Nationalist wrote: »

Too true, as a matter of fact, every Nigerian asylum seeker in Ireland is actually illegal due to EU asylum law. Asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first country they reach after they leave their homeland. There are no direct plane or ferry routes from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore every Nigerian asylum seeker here came from another EU country so is automatically breaking that law.

INB4 "RAAAAAAAAAAAACIST"

But not in before a breach of the Forum Charter:

This issue has been discussed and clarified many times in the Politics forum and is STILL used by some with a xenophobic agenda to derail threads.

While we do not believe that all users who argue against an asylum applicant are xenophobic or trolls, we EXPECT users to know the facts they are presenting. As such, the details of the Dublin Regulation on Asylum entry are clarified above.

Anyone proposing that it is NOT POSSIBLE for an asylum seeker to enter into Ireland as a first member state of entry, will be deemed to be trolling and will be infracted and banned from the forum.

There is no requirement that an application for asylum must be made in the first 'safe' country arrived in.

Anyone posting a suggestion to the contrary falls foul of the rule above, and will be infracted and banned.

Congratulations. Take a week off, read the Charter.

moderately,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Rebelheart wrote: »

What makes them "extreme", when "mainstream" views rely upon the same discrimination and prejudice as the basis for mainstream immigration policies?

The Irish government's immigration policy, for example, is based on citizenship; citizens of the EU enjoy freedom of movement to/from Ireland, non-EU citizens do not. However, the BNP, for example, seek to base the UK's immigration policy on race/ethnicity. For example, one of the proposals from their website:

Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently

There is a vast chasm between those two positions.

dvpower

walshb wrote: »

Well they aren't going thru all that trouble to get here based on "stories back home the Europe."

Milk and Honey it is, at least compard to what they are used to. And they are bypassing other
Euro countries to get to this one. Now, that isn't them being naive, stupid or misinformed, I tell you.

I remember the recession here in the eighties, when people would come home from England with stories of great money to be made on the building sites. Naturally enough, people listened to the spin, but didn't think much about the downsides. Lots of people jumped on the boat with a few quid in their pockets, but quickly found that the reality didn't match ther hype. A similar scenario is at play with non EU nationals arriving in Europe.

And, Irish people didn't get off the boat and start looking for work in Holyhead; they went on to London and other places where their prospects were better. The same applies to Europe's immigrants; they’ll go to the places, like the UK, where their prospects are better. Doing anything else would be naive and stupid.

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

These people are claiming benefits in multiple countries.(a lot of them anyway)

That's one I haven't heard of before. Do you have some evidence of that?

dvpower

anymore wrote: »

If thier lifes were that desperate, they would stop in the first european country they landed in instead of embarking on the Euro Benefits Tour'

What's the Euro Benefits Tour? Don't most of these people disappear once they reach their destination and work illegally in restaurants and on farms and the like? What benefits do they claim?

dvpower

Nationalist wrote: »

There are no direct plane or ferry routes from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore every Nigerian asylum seeker here came from another EU country so is automatically breaking that law.

What amazingly warped logic.

sirromo

dvpower wrote:

What amazingly warped logic.

I wouldn't say it's warped logic at all. If people are genuinely fleeing persecution then you would expect them to seek asylum in the first place they can find it. To me it makes no sense for someone on the other side of the world to pass through an entire continent of safe countries before deciding to seek asylum in a country on the very edge of that continent. If EU law says otherwise then it's the EU law that's warped, not the logic behind the "first-safe-country" principle.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's warped logic at all. If people are genuinely fleeing persecution then you would expect them to seek asylum in the first place they can find it.

Surely it all depends on the resources of the individual concerned? If a Nigerian citizen (for example) of very limited means is fleeing persecution, we might expect them to claim asylum in a neighbouring country, such as Cameroon, for example. However, if the same citizen had greater resources at their disposal, then doesn’t it make sense that they will attempt to get further afield? Perhaps to an English-speaking country where it would be easier for them to make a case for asylum?

dvpower

sirromo wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's warped logic at all.

"There are no direct plane or ferry routes from Nigeria to Ireland. Therefore every Nigerian asylum seeker here came from another EU country so is automatically breaking that law."

Nigeria -> Another non EU country -> Ireland

Warped logic.

Joey the lips

The govt has its own version of this.. Its called the habitual resisidence act and its very effective. The problem is these people are getting pushed back to charities to look after them and these charities are struggleing to help all of these as well as the legal and national people.

dvpower

sirromo wrote: »

If people are genuinely fleeing persecution then you would expect them to seek asylum in the first place they can find it.

Why? Wouldn't they go to the best possible place available. Most refugees do seek asylum in the first place they can find it. Those with greater resources have greater choices and, so, come to places like Europe.

sirromo wrote: »

To me it makes no sense for someone on the other side of the world to pass through an entire continent of safe countries before deciding to seek asylum in a country on the very edge of that continent.

If you come from, say, Nigeria you might want to go to an english speaking country. Or you might want to go to a country with an established population from your own country.

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

Surely it all depends on the resources of the individual concerned? If a Nigerian citizen (for example) of very limited means is fleeing persecution, we might expect them to claim asylum in a neighbouring country, such as Cameroon, for example. However, if the same citizen had greater resources at their disposal, then doesn’t it make sense that they will attempt to get further afield?

It makes sense for an asylum-seeker to seek the maximum amount of comfort as well as safety but it doesn't make sense for the host countries to accept that the search for the maximum amount of a comfort is a good enough justification for entering a country illegally.

If an asylum-seekers want to move to a particular country then they should first gain asylum in the first safe country that they enter and they can then apply through the normal channels to enter their preffered country legally. Merely wanting to move to the country is not good enough reason to enter it illegally and the host country should not be under any obligation to accept this as a valid reason for granting asylum.

dvpower wrote:

If you come from, say, Nigeria you might want to go to an english speaking country. Or you might want to go to a country with an established population from your own country.

Want shouldn't come into it. Granting asylum to people who have illegally entered your country is a matter of recognising that the people in question were in such a desperate position that they weren't able to apply and be granted the legal right to enter your country. This does not apply in the case of most asylum-seekers entering Ireland as most of them entered this country via safe third countries.

djpbarry

sirromo wrote: »

If an asylum-seekers want to move to a particular country then they should first gain asylum in the first safe country that they enter...

Define “safe”.

sirromo wrote: »

Granting asylum to people who have illegally entered your country is a matter of recognising that the people in question were in such a desperate position that they weren't able to apply and be granted the legal right to enter your country. This does not apply in the case of most asylum-seekers entering Ireland as most of them entered this country via safe third countries.

I’m guessing that would the case for virtually all asylum seekers in Ireland. So if your proposal became international and/or EU law, Ireland, by virtue of our “fortunate” geographic location, would be obliged to accept approximately zero asylum applications. That would be convenient, wouldn’t it? Of course, I think you’ll be hard pressed to get our fellow EU states to accept such a proposal.

K-9

sirromo wrote: »

It makes sense for an asylum-seeker to seek the maximum amount of comfort as well as safety but it doesn't make sense for the host countries to accept that the search for the maximum amount of a comfort is a good enough justification for entering a country illegally.

If an asylum-seekers want to move to a particular country then they should first gain asylum in the first safe country that they enter and they can then apply through the normal channels to enter their preffered country legally. Merely wanting to move to the country is not good enough reason to enter it illegally and the host country should not be under any obligation to accept this as a valid reason for granting asylum.




Want shouldn't come into it. Granting asylum to people who have illegally entered your country is a matter of recognising that the people in question were in such a desperate position that they weren't able to apply and be granted the legal right to enter your country. This does not apply in the case of most asylum-seekers entering Ireland as most of them entered this country via safe third countries.

All they have to get is a connecting flight from Heathrow to Dublin for about €50.

People may not like the law, but it is there and it isn't that hard to get a connecting flight. My understanding is that as long as you haven't cleared immigration, you have not entered that country, in this example, the UK.

K-9

djpbarry wrote: »

Define “safe”.
I’m guessing that would the case for virtually all asylum seekers in Ireland. So if your proposal became international and/or EU law, Ireland, by virtue of our “fortunate” geographic location, would be obliged to accept approximately zero asylum applications. That would be convenient, wouldn’t it? Of course, I think you’ll be hard pressed to get our fellow EU states to accept such a proposal.

Indeed. The whole point of the regulation was to spread the burden on other countries that would be traditional first ports of call.

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

Define “safe”.

Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark - all safe countries.

djpbarry wrote:

I’m guessing that would the case for virtually all asylum seekers in Ireland. So if your proposal became international and/or EU law, Ireland, by virtue of our “fortunate” geographic location, would be obliged to accept approximately zero asylum applications. That would be convenient, wouldn’t it?

It is convenient and we are in a very fortunate geographic location. If other people are not as lucky as us then that's not our problem.

djpbarry wrote:

Of course, I think you’ll be hard pressed to get our fellow EU states to accept such a proposal.

Why would they have a problem accepting the proposal? Most of the asylum-seekers entering France, Britain, Belgium, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries also pass through safe third countries and so we would not be alone in benefitting from a change in the law.

K-9 wrote:

My understanding is that as long as you haven't cleared immigration, you have not entered that country, in this example, the UK.

That shouldn't make any difference. The fact that you were physically in a safe country where you could have applied for asylum but didn't suggests that you're acting out of choice rather than desperation. That should be grounds enough for rejecting a claim for asylum.

Iwasfrozen

creeper1 wrote: »

I thought I would share this. People are risking their lives, jumping on trucks, taking boats across perilous seas and paying smugglers all to get into Europe and the UK. I know if they had the chance they would make their way to Ireland.

Do you realise the UK is in Europe ?

K-9

sirromo wrote: »

Why would they have a problem accepting the proposal? Most of the asylum-seekers entering France, Britain, Belgium, Holland, and the Scandinavian countries also pass through safe third countries and so we would not be alone in benefitting from a change in the law.




That shouldn't make any difference. The fact that you were physically in a safe country where you could have applied for asylum but didn't suggests that you're acting out of choice rather than desperation. That should be grounds enough for rejecting a claim for asylum.

I would have thought Britain, France and Holland would have been first destination countries, due to having massive international hub airports. I'd be surprised if the majority aren't.

To put it in an Irish context, when Irish people fleed the Famine should they have been denied entry to the USA?

anymore

K-9 wrote: »

I would have thought Britain, France and Holland would have been first destination countries, due to having massive international hub airports. I'd be surprised if the majority aren't.

To put it in an Irish context, when Irish people fleed the Famine should they have been denied entry to the USA?

I though you were going to put this in context ?

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

I would have thought Britain, France and Holland would have been first destination countries, due to having massive international hub airports. I'd be surprised if the majority aren't.

To put it in an Irish context, when Irish people fleed the Famine should they have been denied entry to the USA?

Gangs of New York much?

http://www.myspace.com/americannative

"Im hearing confessions tonight you mother-whoring Irish ******; whos man are you? whos man are you? you see this knife? Im going to teach you to speak english with this f*cking knife!"

I mean no offense, but that was a great line.

I though you were going to put this in context ?

I'd have thought it was in context, unless you can demonstrate how it isnt.

anymore

dvpower wrote: »

What's the Euro Benefits Tour? Don't most of these people disappear once they reach their destination and work illegally in restaurants and on farms and the like? What benefits do they claim?

Why do you say they disappear ?

Andrew33

dvpower wrote: »

I doubt that many of them are genuinely fleeing persecution, but their economic situation at home must be desperately bad if they are willing to risk their lives getting to the EU. They probably have a badly conceived idea about what life in the EU for an illegal immigrant is like.

Once they get to Calais, they probably figure that one more hop into the UK is worth the extra effort. There must be better job opportunities etc in the UK.

Are you really that naive that you think they stop in the UK??? Once they reach the UK, its a cake walk into Eire(tru Northern Ireland) to milk our over generous welfare system. I'm self employed and even though I was a PAYE worker for 15 years before I became self employed and STILL pay tax and PRSI (reduced rate) if I get sick or injured I'm entitled to NOTHING from the state. Explain to me how thats right or fair. Throw everyone of them out!

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

To put it in an Irish context, when Irish people fleed the Famine should they have been denied entry to the USA?

Yes.

K-9

anymore wrote: »

I though you were going to put this in context ?

Well, what other context is there in relation to Ireland? Bad and all as things are here, we are hardly asylum seekers when we go abroad!

The Irish during the Famine had plenty of options before America. Why America? How could they afford it? Surely they would have went to the first port of call which wasn't even a foreign country?

Andrew33 wrote: »

Are you really that naive that you think they stop in the UK??? Once they reach the UK, its a cake walk into Eire(tru Northern Ireland) to milk our over generous welfare system. I'm self employed and even though I was a PAYE worker for 15 years before I became self employed and STILL pay tax and PRSI (reduced rate) if I get sick or injured I'm entitled to NOTHING from the state. Explain to me how thats right or fair. Throw everyone of them out!

That has been the way for the self employed for years.

K-9

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes.

Seems to be the same logic to me.

Andrew33

That has been the way for the self employed for years.

I know, I've been self employed for years:rolleyes:
That doesn't make it right though.
I pay private health insurance for myself and family and had to take my daughter to A&E recently (first time in probably 10yrs she's been ill) and I still had to PAY €100 for the pleasure while at least 25% of the people in the waiting room were of roma appearance (i head counted while waiting), you can be guaranteed THEY wern't paying €100 and probably had med cards to boot!
I'll probably get a ban for this post as it'll be seen by some moderator as racist!

Iwasfrozen

K-9 wrote: »

Seems to be the same logic to me.

That's because it is.

walshb

Andrew33 wrote: »

I know, I've been self employed for years:rolleyes:
That doesn't make it right though.
I pay private health insurance for myself and family and had to take my daughter to A&E recently (first time in probably 10yrs she's been ill) and I still had to PAY €100 for the pleasure while at least 25% of the people in the waiting room were of roma appearance (i head counted while waiting), you can be guaranteed THEY wern't paying €100 and probably had med cards to boot!
I'll probably get a ban for this post as it'll be seen by some moderator as racist!

You know, sometimes when you make sense and speak the truth, it can get you banned

Overheal

walshb wrote: »

You know, sometimes when you make sense and speak the truth, it can get you banned

It could have been Romas, Polish, Americans, etc. - Still talking about people who would definitely not be Irish, or at best they were First and Second Generation Immigrants, and it was convenient that they fit the stereotype of a Welfare-adorned Immigrant.

I don't think the comment was particularly racist but I can't think of any other way to phrase the particular issue. No more than you can dance around sex discussion without at some point getting to the down and gritty as seen in S&S, LGB, and Personal Issues.

K-9

Andrew33 wrote: »

I know, I've been self employed for years:rolleyes:
That doesn't make it right though.
I pay private health insurance for myself and family and had to take my daughter to A&E recently (first time in probably 10yrs she's been ill) and I still had to PAY €100 for the pleasure while at least 25% of the people in the waiting room were of roma appearance (i head counted while waiting), you can be guaranteed THEY wern't paying €100 and probably had med cards to boot!
I'll probably get a ban for this post as it'll be seen by some moderator as racist!

It doesn't make it right. We should have a proper universal health system here similar to other European systems. You'd pay more PRSI though, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind that.

As regards a racist post, why do you think it maybe construed as racist?

K-9

walshb wrote: »

You know, sometimes when you make sense and speak the truth, it can get you banned

Yeah, but usually its just because its a racist statement.

dvpower

anymore wrote: »

Why do you say they disappear ?

Because they are illegal. So, if they are economic migrants rather than refugees, they have no reason to register with the authorities. The UK home office put the number of illegals at between 310,000 and 570,000. This is widely suspected to be an underestimation.

wikipedia wrote:

Although it is difficult to know how many people reside in the UK illegally, a Home Office study released in March 2005 estimated a population of between 310,000 and 570,000.

dvpower

Andrew33 wrote: »

Are you really that naive that you think they stop in the UK??? Once they reach the UK, its a cake walk into Eire(tru Northern Ireland) to milk our over generous welfare system.

Do you have figures for this?
If they are illegal immigrants, they are non entitled to claim social welfare.
If they are asylum seekers or refugees their transit points are mostly known.