pamela izevbekhai

MajorMax

Can anyone tell me if the new Government is doing anything to address refugee policy of the previous Government

Also has pamela izevbekhai been deported?

Nodin

MajorMax wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if the new Government is doing anything to address the deplorable open door policy of the previous Government

What "open door policy"?

MajorMax wrote: »

Also has the proven liar pamela izevbekhai been deported?

If it hasn't been reported in the News, how would anyone here know....?

MajorMax

All of this has already been discussed on another thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055732457

I just asked a couple of simple questions. If you can't answer them then please don't contribute

charlemont

Easy to pick on a woman who just wants a better future for her kids , Isnt it ?



But you wont do nothing about politicians here who are "Proven liars".

BrianD

MajorMax wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if the new Government is doing anything to address the deplorable open door policy of the previous Government

Also has the proven liar pamela izevbekhai been deported? I am not a racist I am a Nationalist*


*Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation

Why was it deplorable?

I don't see the point in stating that you're a nationalist. It would have been sufficient to state that you were merely not a racist. However, since you have made a point of stating that you are not a racist I would be inclined to disagree given the nature and tone of your post.

As I recall it is quite a controversial case, I don't recall that anything was proven either way.

In any case, the door is open with most people going out the door. We could do with a few coming in to keep the country going.

MajorMax wrote:

I just asked a couple of simple questions. If you can't answer them then please don't contribute

Your questions were rhetorical which suggests to me that you are only looking for answers that are in harmony with your views.

MajorMax

charlemont wrote: »

Easy to pick on a woman who just wants a better future for her kids , Isnt it ?



But you wont do nothing about politicians here who are "Proven liars".

Let her seek a better life in her own country or emigrate lawfully. I like the vast majority of people in this country voted them out of power so your post is meaningless. All this has been covered already. I just want someone to answer my questions not recycle another thread

MajorMax

BrianD wrote: »

Why was it deplorable?

I don't see the point in stating that you're a nationalist. It would have been sufficient to state that you were merely not a racist. However, since you have made a point of stating that you are not a racist I would be inclined to disagree given the nature and tone of your post.

As I recall it is quite a controversial case, I don't recall that anything was proven either way.

In any case, the door is open with most people going out the door. We could do with a few coming in to keep the country going.



Your questions were rhetorical which suggests to me that you are only looking for answers that are in harmony with your views.

My questions are not rhetorical. I am looking far answers, if you can't answer them then please don't contribute
I have stated that I am not a racist. If you believe otherwise, well I can't help what you think

Mena

People are not accepting the premis of your questions (particularly the first one). So of course clarification is being sought. Provide it and responses may follow.

MajorMax

OK Amended. Can anyone out there answer my questions?

Mena

Answers are no and no (not yet). As to Q1, these are international obligations, not something the government can just change on a whim.

Nodin

MajorMax wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if the new Government is doing anything to address refugee policy of the previous Government

What was the policy or aspect of same that needed amending specifically? As pointed out by Mena, we are under certain obligations by way of the Geneva convention and its various associated protocols.

MajorMax wrote: »

Also has pamela izevbekhai been deported?

I believe that was covered by post 2.

glic71rods46t0

Mena wrote: »

Answers are no and no (not yet). As to Q1, these are international obligations, not something the government can just change on a whim.

In the EU, asylum seekers are required to apply for asylum at the first port of entry into the EU.
As Ireland is not a port of first entry for any African country it is a reasonable assumption that many/all of our african asylum seekers came to our shores as part of a deliberate scheme of "asylum shopping".
Many of these people have been naturalised and hold a stamp 4 or an Irish passport. Interestingly, the issues which gave rise to their requiring asylum magically disappear once their right of residency in Ireland is secure. Huge numbers of African-Irish (former asylum seekers) go home to Africa on their holidays every year - despite the appalling life threatening situation they were escaping from when they arrived here to claim asylum.
I think that these people were/are economic migrants who learnt that lying to the Irish people was a ticket to prosperity

Nodin

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

In the EU, asylum seekers are required to apply for asylum at the first port of entry into the EU.
...................

No - a common misconception.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=3

glic71rods46t0

Nodin wrote: »

No - a common misconception.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=3

emm, I think you are wrong...

From the Irish Refugee Council (I guess these guys/gals know what they are talking about) http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/dublinconvention4.html

The Dublin Convention is essentially a mechanism for determining which Member State of the European Union is responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the contracting States. Asylum seekers must lodge their application for asylum in the first EU country in which they arrive and may be returned to another EU Member State if it can be shown that they have either passed through the border of another State (by air, sea or land) or made an application for asylum in another Member State.

The basic logistics of getting to Ireland realistically involves travelling through another EU member state (by air, sea or land)

Nodin

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

....
The basic logistics of getting to Ireland realistically involves travelling through another EU member state (by air, sea or land)

...and, if you re-read what I linked, you'll note that

"You cannot be deemed to have illegally entered a country until you clear immigration.

If you enter an EU country on a transit flight to another country, you DO NOT have to go through immigration."

RandomName2

charlemont wrote: »

Easy to pick on a woman who just wants a better future for her kids , Isnt it ?

Easy to pick on an illegal immigrant who repeatedly lied and appealed court judgement.

Ireland isn't here to solve the world's problems - and wouldn't be capable of doing so if it tried. Having said that, we are still giving plenty in overseas aid - and losing plenty of our youth due to (legal) emigration due to lack of employment here.

Sure you can say that putting your family first is a morally good thing - sure. It's what is generally expected of parents. Handing out residency status and grants like they are smarties in reward would be a strange response from any government though.

glic71rods46t0

Nodin wrote: »

...and, if you re-read what I linked, you'll note that

"You cannot be deemed to have illegally entered a country until you clear immigration.

If you enter an EU country on a transit flight to another country, you DO NOT have to go through immigration."

You linked to something which looks to me like someones personal opinion. Perhaps you might look at the link in my post for the Irish Refugee Council. With all due respect I think they know what they are talking about albeit from an advocacy perspective.

Any genuine asylum seeker seeking refugee status should be happy to make land in the nearest "safe" country. The reality of the asylum seekers who reached our shores is that they were not just seeking asylum, they were specifically seeking asylum in Ireland. It is reasonable to assume that this was for economic reasons. (And indeed the recent dramatic decline in applications to Ireland is telling).
The reality is that many of these asylum seekers, once residency in Ireland has been secured, go back to their country of origin on their holidays.
It is difficult to believe that genuine asylum seekers would choose to revisit the source of their "persecution", often on a regular basis, if they were genuinely fleeing such persecution.
The debate about economic migrant versus genuine asylum seeker is pretty straight forward, I suspect the majority of our African asylum seekers were/are economic migrants who falsely played the asylum card.

Clareboy

Asylum seeking is the greatest scam to be ever perpetrated upon the Irish nation, a scam for which we will pay a terrible price going forward into the future.

JustinDee

Clareboy wrote: »

Asylum seeking is the greatest scam to be ever perpetrated upon the Irish nation, a scam for which we will pay a terrible price going forward into the future.

Its not a scam if people have a genuine case, whether you like it or not.

Clareboy

JustinDee wrote: »

Its not a scam if people have a genuine case, whether you like it or not.

Our late Minister for Justice, Michael McDowall admitted that the vast majority of asylum seekers came here on the basis of some ' cock and bull story ' and he should know!

JustinDee

Clareboy wrote: »

Our late Minister for Justice, Michael McDowall admitted that the vast majority of asylum seekers came here on the basis of some ' cock and bull story ' and he should know!

What part of 'genuine case' is unclear to you?

glic71rods46t0

Clareboy wrote: »

Our late Minister for Justice, Michael McDowall admitted that the vast majority of asylum seekers came here on the basis of some ' cock and bull story ' and he should know!

Did Michael McDowell die? Just googled it when I read your post but cant see anything about it. I did see that former Minister for Justice and former Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan died recently. To lose one Minister for Justice is careless but to lose two ......

glic71rods46t0

JustinDee wrote: »

What part of 'genuine case' is unclear to you?

The part thats unclear to me is "genuine case" in a thread about Pamela Izevbekhai:eek:

JustinDee

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

The part thats unclear to me is "genuine case" in a thread about Pamela Izevbekhai:eek:

The post tried to argue that 'asylum seeking' was a scam. There are genuine cases out there regardless.

Mr. Presentable

JustinDee wrote: »

The post tried to argue that 'asylum seeking' was a scam. There are genuine cases out there regardless.

There are, but this is not one

BrianD

MajorMax wrote: »

Let her seek a better life in her own country or emigrate lawfully. I like the vast majority of people in this country voted them out of power so your post is meaningless. All this has been covered already. I just want someone to answer my questions not recycle another thread

Pot calling the kettle black?

This country has a long history of breaking the immigration laws of others en masse (then delude ourselves into thinking we built those countries). So we shouldn't be getting up on our high horse when others come here seeking a better life.

Whether she is a genuine case or not really makes no odds. She is one case and hardly a burden to the nation and I don't think most people are concerned one way or the other. We have more pressing issues.

glic71rods46t0

BrianD wrote: »

Pot calling the kettle black?

This country has a long history of breaking the immigration laws of others en masse (then delude ourselves into thinking we built those countries). So we shouldn't be getting up on our high horse when others come here seeking a better life.

Whether she is a genuine case or not really makes no odds. She is one case and hardly a burden to the nation and I don't think most people are concerned one way or the other. We have more pressing issues.

This country didnt break any countries immigration laws - perhaps some of our citizens did but that doesnt mean that Ireland, as a country is guilty of same. Such a notion is ridiculous.
Irish people emigrated as economic migrants and mostly were welcomed to their host countries (with the notable exception of the illegals in the USA). The illegals in USA outstayed a holiday visa - they werent claiming asylum by lying to the authorities.
The idea of immigrants coming here as economic migrants is fine - we allow in a certain quote every year based on skill shortages being experienced in the economy - whats being discussed here is people dishonestly and fraudulently using/abusing the asylum system.

Pamela is indeed just 1 case. Any idea how much she and her family have costs the state? - over €1m in legal fees and god know how much in direct provisions/social welfare.
I think most people care about this case, not just because of how much it has cost, but because if we dont lay down a marker on this one we might as well open our borders to everyone who manages to have enough money to pay the criminals who arrange passage from Nigeria, through several EU states all the way to the easy going liberal utopia that is Ireland.

Oh, and to answer the bold part quoted above - she has cost us a fortune, she is a massive burden on the state and the fact that her case is not genuine is of fundamental importance. Its amazing how gullible some people are - she betrayed all the holy joe's who supported her in the first place and now, when found out to be spouting lies, some people think its doesnt matter:eek:

beagle001

Actually scamella izibecki has amassed legal fees of over 3 million so far paid for by you and I the taxpayer.
She is a proven scam artist and yes many citizens care about this issue as we watch the asylum system being abused by 98% of claimants.

#15

beagle001 wrote: »

asylum system being abused by 98% of claimants.

That's complete nonsense.

nesf

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

You linked to something which looks to me like someones personal opinion. Perhaps you might look at the link in my post for the Irish Refugee Council. With all due respect I think they know what they are talking about albeit from an advocacy perspective.

Any genuine asylum seeker seeking refugee status should be happy to make land in the nearest "safe" country. The reality of the asylum seekers who reached our shores is that they were not just seeking asylum, they were specifically seeking asylum in Ireland. It is reasonable to assume that this was for economic reasons. (And indeed the recent dramatic decline in applications to Ireland is telling).
The reality is that many of these asylum seekers, once residency in Ireland has been secured, go back to their country of origin on their holidays.
It is difficult to believe that genuine asylum seekers would choose to revisit the source of their "persecution", often on a regular basis, if they were genuinely fleeing such persecution.
The debate about economic migrant versus genuine asylum seeker is pretty straight forward, I suspect the majority of our African asylum seekers were/are economic migrants who falsely played the asylum card.

Read this please: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=3

This has been done to death far too many times on this forum.

johnnyskeleton

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

Many of these people have been naturalised and hold a stamp 4 or an Irish passport. Interestingly, the issues which gave rise to their requiring asylum magically disappear once their right of residency in Ireland is secure. Huge numbers of African-Irish (former asylum seekers) go home to Africa on their holidays every year - despite the appalling life threatening situation they were escaping from when they arrived here to claim asylum.

Those who have been naturalised and/or hold a stamp 4 post 2005 must have done so lawfully as such are given by the Minister. You can only naturalise when you have been lawfully in the country for the relevant period. If you know of anyone who was granted asylum and who returns to their country of origin, you should inform the authorities. Some do, which may suggest that their claim was a scam. However, for others it could mean that their country has improved dramatically since they left it.

EDIT: Deliberately not dealing with the implications of the Dublin Convention because that would be in breach of the forum charter, you know that document that you have chosen to ignore?

Nodin wrote: »

No - a common misconception.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=3

Unfortunately a common misconception held by many of those in power.

beagle001 wrote: »

Actually scamella izibecki has amassed legal fees of over 3 million so far paid for by you and I the taxpayer.

Source?

AlekSmart

JustinDee wrote: »

Its not a scam if people have a genuine case, whether you like it or not.

However,Ms Izevbekhai has rather spectacularly failed every legal test of that "Genuine" status and this is the nub of the OP's question.

Why is the woman still resident in this State when she has provenly treated it's legal and social systems with absolute contempt.

However,leaving aside Ms Izevbekhai's own behaviour,there remain a great many issues which her case has thrown up,not least of which being at what point does the Minister for Justice have to act to ensure the integrity of this States own constitution.

Every organ of the Irish State has behaved impeccably in their handling of this difficult and problematic case.

The Gardai,in particular,are deserving of immense praise for the proffessionalism with which they have dealt with this woman,given that her actions thus far,have been demonstrably illegal.

The behaviour of the National Media and some Public Representatives has,on the other hand been sadly lacking in proffesionalism or necessary detachment.

RTE,in particular,has pointedly failed to explain why one of it's most senior correspondents,rather spectacularly failed to adhere to the most fundamental journalistic rules regarding the "investigative" reporting on the Izevbekhai case background.

It should be borne in mind that if an Irish Citizen had treated the High and Supreme Courts as Ms Izevbekhai and her backers have done,it is highly likely they would be serving a lengthy prison sentence by now,and almost certainly would be paying a large fine too.

I rather suspect that the general Administrative attitude is one of a hope that the entire Izevbekhai issue will simply fade away with nobody being held to account and no attention being focused upon the wide ranging issues which Ms Izvebakhai's long running campaign raised.

Perhaps it will,but I,for one,fervently hope that whatever happens to this woman and her children,the Irish State will have learnt it's lesson on how to deal with individuals intent upon challenging it's laws and practices on the most frivolous of bases.

BrianD

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

This country didnt break any countries immigration laws - perhaps some of our citizens did but that doesnt mean that Ireland, as a country is guilty of same. Such a notion is ridiculous.

Perhaps to clarify the confusion that you are experiencing I meant the people of this nation - a generality.

Irish people emigrated as economic migrants and mostly were welcomed to their host countries (with the notable exception of the illegals in the USA). The illegals in USA outstayed a holiday visa - they werent claiming asylum by lying to the authorities.

Mostly welcomed? So you might think but I would disagree. And illegal is still an illegal whether they are there for economic reasons or by way of escaping persecution. "The Irish" have blatently disregarded the immigration laws of countries such as the USA and Australia for years and continue to do as some sort of bizarre sense of entitlement. The fact that they fly in on visa waivers doesn't make it any different to coming in the back of a truck.

The idea of immigrants coming here as economic migrants is fine - we allow in a certain quote every year based on skill shortages being experienced in the economy - whats being discussed here is people dishonestly and fraudulently using/abusing the asylum system.

The problem with the Irish system is that we don't have any real policy. Nobody was coming here until the economic boom and then we made it up as we went along which caused a multiplicity of issues. We didn't need skills just workers. I don't see any evidence of Ireland seeking skilled professionals like, say, Australia does. I'd be curious to know more about these quotas if they exist.

Pamela is indeed just 1 case. Any idea how much she and her family have costs the state? - over €1m in legal fees and god know how much in direct provisions/social welfare.
I think most people care about this case, not just because of how much it has cost, but because if we dont lay down a marker on this one we might as well open our borders to everyone who manages to have enough money to pay the criminals who arrange passage from Nigeria, through several EU states all the way to the easy going liberal utopia that is Ireland.

But that's the due process that our system of doing things affords. If she is in the right it would still have cost the same amount of money. Personally, I'd forgotten about the case until the OP raised it - seems to be a heavy burden on his or her mind. And it's not a case of opening our borders. We have processes in place and we do deport people back to the home countries. The processes are far from perfect but it is certainly not an open border situation nor has the case being discussed changed that.

Oh, and to answer the bold part quoted above - she has cost us a fortune, she is a massive burden on the state and the fact that her case is not genuine is of fundamental importance. Its amazing how gullible some people are - she betrayed all the holy joe's who supported her in the first place and now, when found out to be spouting lies, some people think its doesnt matter:eek:

A fortune and a massive burden? I think not in the grand scheme of things and the case is of no fundamental importance to our immigration laws.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

glic71rods46t0

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Those who have been naturalised and/or hold a stamp 4 post 2005 must have done so lawfully as such are given by the Minister. You can only naturalise when you have been lawfully in the country for the relevant period. If you know of anyone who was granted asylum and who returns to their country of origin, you should inform the authorities. Some do, which may suggest that their claim was a scam. However, for others it could mean that their country has improved dramatically since they left it.

The point is that bogus asylum seekers came into this country claiming to be escaping from persecution. Our systems were hopelessly inadequate to check the accuracy/truthfulness of their claims and word obviously went around Lagos and other cities about the lax systems in place in Ireland (and the rates of social welfare no doubt). This lead to nothing short of an avalanche of asylum seekers coming to this country with bogus claims which we were unable to verify. The simplest escape valve for our system at the time was to grant refugee status. Roll on a few years and naturalisation and citizenship followed as Ireland decided to become a multi cultural society and the ordinary Joe Soap had to keep his mouth shut for fear of being labelled a racist.
The whole point is that the system was unable to check the truthfulness of the claims being made - whether these people were lawfully in the country is highly debatable. A huge number came here with bogus claims and the law was unable to deal with it because our systems were unprepared for the thousands of africans who made Ireland their destination of choice when fleeing "persecution"

The litmus test for the truthfulness of these asylum seekers is the huge number of these people who go on holidays back to their original country on a regular basis. I am glad you acknowledge that some do, indicating a scam. I would substitute "some" with "many".

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

EDIT: Deliberately not dealing with the implications of the Dublin Convention because that would be in breach of the forum charter, you know that document that you have chosen to ignore?

I have ignored nothing. Some posters on this thread have simply ignored my posts on the topic which directly contradict the erroneous interpretation of the Convention being quoted on this forum.
As I have pointed out in my previous posts several times, I tend to believe the Irish Refugee Council - I think its fair to say that they know what they are talking about. Their website, as previously (and now tiresomely) pointed out calls it differently.
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/fa...nvention4.html

"The Dublin Convention is essentially a mechanism for determining which Member State of the European Union is responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the contracting States. Asylum seekers must lodge their application for asylum in the first EU country in which they arrive and may be returned to another EU Member State if it can be shown that they have either passed through the border of another State (by air, sea or land) or made an application for asylum in another Member State."

glic71rods46t0

BrianD wrote: »

Perhaps to clarify the confusion that you are experiencing I meant the people of this nation - a generality.

I never claimed to be confused - I simply stated that your notion of equating some of our citizens with the entire country is a ridiculous notion - I stand by that comment and welcome your clarification which seems to indicate that you accept it was ridiculous as well.

BrianD wrote: »

Mostly welcomed? So you might think but I would disagree. And illegal is still an illegal whether they are there for economic reasons or by way of escaping persecution. "The Irish" have blatently disregarded the immigration laws of countries such as the USA and Australia for years and continue to do as some sort of bizarre sense of entitlement. The fact that they fly in on visa waivers doesn't make it any different to coming in the back of a truck.

Agreed, illegal regardless of the means of entry. All offenders should be repatriated, whether it be Irish people in USA, Austtralia etc or Nigerians in Ireland - agreed?

BrianD wrote: »

The problem with the Irish system is that we don't have any real policy. Nobody was coming here until the economic boom and then we made it up as we went along which caused a multiplicity of issues. We didn't need skills just workers. I don't see any evidence of Ireland seeking skilled professionals like, say, Australia does. I'd be curious to know more about these quotas if they exist.

There are several quota schemes in place. I recall Mary Harney brining one in for Nurses for instance - I dont have time to provide other examples just at the minute.

BrianD wrote: »

But that's the due process that our system of doing things affords. If she is in the right it would still have cost the same amount of money. Personally, I'd forgotten about the case until the OP raised it - seems to be a heavy burden on his or her mind. And it's not a case of opening our borders. We have processes in place and we do deport people back to the home countries. The processes are far from perfect but it is certainly not an open border situation nor has the case being discussed changed that.

That is a statement of opinion apart from the second sentence. She has been found to be a dishonest person who presented falsified evidence and abused our system. Immigration is obviously an issue you hold important, otherwise why take so much effort in posting on this thread - in that context your assertion that you had forgotten about this case doesnt hold up, I think you made that statement as an attempt to discredit the OP. It hasnt worked in my opinion.

BrianD wrote: »

A fortune and a massive burden? I think not in the grand scheme of things and the case is of no fundamental importance to our immigration laws.

The importance of this case cannot be overstated - it send a mesage to bogus asylum seekers everywhere regarding the consequences of lying your way into our country. There must be consequences for doing this - and more importantly justice must be SEEN to be done

nesf

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

I have ignored nothing. Some posters on this thread have simply ignored my posts on the topic which directly contradict the erroneous interpretation of the Convention being quoted on this forum.
As I have pointed out in my previous posts several times, I tend to believe the Irish Refugee Council - I think its fair to say that they know what they are talking about. Their website, as previously (and now tiresomely) pointed out calls it differently.
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/fa...nvention4.html

"The Dublin Convention is essentially a mechanism for determining which Member State of the European Union is responsible for examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the contracting States. Asylum seekers must lodge their application for asylum in the first EU country in which they arrive and may be returned to another EU Member State if it can be shown that they have either passed through the border of another State (by air, sea or land) or made an application for asylum in another Member State."

As per the link I gave you the punishment for questioning the interpretation of the Dublin Conventions is a ban. Enjoy and in future read what I link you more carefully.

RGDATA!

Clareboy wrote: »

Asylum seeking is the greatest scam to be ever perpetrated upon the Irish nation, a scam for which we will pay a terrible price going forward into the future.

greater than the bank guarantee? wow!

JustinDee

AlekSmart wrote: »

However,Ms Izevbekhai has rather spectacularly failed every legal test of that "Genuine" status and this is the nub of the OP's question

Hey, someone posted that 'asylum seeking is a scam'. That incorrect generalism was what I was replying to.

Nodin

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

The point is that bogus asylum seekers came into this country claiming to be escaping from persecution. Our systems were hopelessly inadequate to check the accuracy/truthfulness of their claims and word obviously went around Lagos and other cities about the lax systems in place in Ireland (and the rates of social welfare no doubt).
This lead to nothing short of an avalanche of asylum seekers coming to this country with bogus claims which we were unable to verify.

Given the fact that our acceptance rate of Asylum seekers is consistently one of the lowest in Europe (never over 11%, I believe, as oppossed to the European average of around 20%), this strikes me as a bizzarre statement.

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

The simplest escape valve for our system at the time was to grant refugee status. Roll on a few years and naturalisation and citizenship followed as Ireland decided to become a multi cultural society and the ordinary Joe Soap had to keep his mouth shut for fear of being labelled a racist.

....but again, thats not what happened.

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

The whole point is that the system was unable to check the truthfulness of the claims being made - whether these people were lawfully in the country is highly debatable. A huge number came here with bogus claims and the law was unable to deal with it because our systems were unprepared for the thousands of africans who made Ireland their destination of choice when fleeing "persecution".

Do you have some statistics for this?

ticl81we0aqb9f wrote: »

The litmus test for the truthfulness of these asylum seekers is the huge number of these people who go on holidays back to their original country on a regular basis. I am glad you acknowledge that some do, indicating a scam. I would substitute "some" with "many".".

As above.

thebigbiffo

Nodin wrote: »

Given the fact that our acceptance rate of Asylum seekers is consistently one of the lowest in Europe (never over 11%, I believe, as oppossed to the European average of around 20%), this strikes me as a bizzarre statement.

I’d like to point out what this oft quoted number really means – it means that in the eyes of the state the vast vast majority of asylum seekers are bogus. Considering then that (as you’ve quoted yourself Nodin) less than 1 in 5 (20%) of failed asylum seekers are ever deported then the it’s fairly obvious that we have a totally inadequate asylum system being abused by economic migrants. Basically, we've a very sound basis on which to make the following statement: “the vast majority of asylum seekers are nothing more than illegal emigrants". It doesn’t sound particular nice but it’s the harsh truth based on quantifiable evidence (that you yourself provided).

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I’d like to point out what this oft quoted number really means – it means that in the eyes of the state the vast vast majority of asylum seekers are bogus. Considering then that (as you’ve quoted yourself Nodin) less than 1 in 5 (20%) of failed asylum seekers are ever deported then the it’s fairly obvious that we have a totally inadequate asylum system being abused by economic migrants. Basically, we've a very sound basis on which to make the following statement: “the vast majority of asylum seekers are nothing more than illegal emigrants". It doesn’t sound particular nice but it’s the harsh truth based on quantifiable evidence (that you yourself provided).

The vast majority leave prior to deportation and are given financial assistance to. In 2010 there were no more than 7,000 persons listed as 'Asylum seeker' in-country.

thebigbiffo

Nodin wrote: »

The vast majority leave prior to deportation

Source please.

And can i just say that 'only' 7,000 aylum seekers is a very high number to be financial burdens on the state, especially when over 90% of them will turn out to be frauds.

walrusgumble

Nodin wrote: »

The vast majority leave prior to deportation and are given financial assistance to. In 2010 there were no more than 7,000 persons listed as 'Asylum seeker' in-country.

Financial assistance as in IOM? The Deportation Orders Rate by suggest otherwise ie "vast majority" leave prior to deportation.

nesf

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Source please.

And can i just say that 'only' 7,000 aylum seekers is a very high number to be financial burdens on the state, especially when over 90% of them will turn out to be frauds.

I'm sorry, but that's just hilarious. In the same breath you demand a source (reasonable and warranted here) and then pull a stat out of the air without giving any source for it.

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Source please.

And can i just say that 'only' 7,000 aylum seekers is a very high number to be financial burdens on the state, especially when over 90% of them will turn out to be frauds.

This is 2009

Currently, there are approximately 7,000 asylum-seekers at various stages of the application process in the system. Almost 5,000 are at first instance and appeal stage.

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/integration-boss-hits-back-at-aherns-90-unfounded-asylum-claim-91579.html#ixzz1Pp3auSsP

This is reduced to 6,107 in 2010 (page 2)
http://www.ria.gov.ie/en/RIA/RIA%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf/Files/RIA%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf

Claims being rejected do not neccessarily mean they are fradulent, it means they are not deemed to meet the criteria set down, which is a different thing.

Secondly, are you suggesting that because there is a high number of rejections, the state should automatically prejudge all applicants?

thebigbiffo

nesf wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's just hilarious. In the same breath you demand a source (reasonable and warranted here) and then pull a stat out of the air without giving any source for it.

Yeah sure, try keep up will you.

Nodin wrote: »

Given the fact that our acceptance rate of Asylum seekers is consistently one of the lowest in Europe (never over 11%, I believe, as oppossed to the European average of around 20%), this strikes me as a bizzarre statement.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I’d like to point out what this oft quoted number really means – it means that in the eyes of the state the vast vast majority of asylum seekers are bogus.

Getting the picture?

thebigbiffo

Nodin wrote: »

This is 2009


Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/integration-boss-hits-back-at-aherns-90-unfounded-asylum-claim-91579.html#ixzz1Pp3auSsP

This is reduced to 6,107 in 2010 (page 2)
http://www.ria.gov.ie/en/RIA/RIA%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf/Files/RIA%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf

Claims being rejected do not neccessarily mean they are fradulent, it means they are not deemed to meet the criteria set down, which is a different thing.

Secondly, are you suggesting that because there is a high number of rejections, the state should automatically prejudge all applicants?

Maybe I missed it in there, but it's this statement I wanted a source for?


"The vast majority leave prior to deportation and are given financial assistance to".

Back that up clearly please.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0017/sec0002.html#zza17y1996s2

Above you'll find the legal definition of asylum seeker. If you claim asylum and do not meet this definition you are not an asylum seeker and have made a false claim in the eyes of the law. I seriously don't understand what's so hard to grasp. The chap in your examiner link doesn't like the term 'unfounded' and prefers 'rejected' when talking about the 90% refusal rate but call it what you will - 90% of AS's still do not have the criteria but presented themselves as such anyway....they're false applications.

Where did I say the state should pre-judge all applicants? I never suggested a solution - I'm pointing out the problem.

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Getting the picture?

Rejection does not nessecarily equate to a verdict of "fradulent".

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Maybe I missed it in there, but it's this statement I wanted a source for?


"The vast majority leave prior to deportation and are given financial assistance to".
.

According to the Department of Justice last night, many of those served with a deportation order leave the State at that stage, before it can be implemented, and they do not inform the immigration authorities of their departure.
Deportation
Under existing legislation, immigration officials are obliged to give 14 days' notice to a person facing deportation.
Officials say that many of those who have failed in their attempt to find asylum here, and leave the country before arrest, usually move to the UK.
Others agree to leave the State voluntarily and their departures are not recorded on deportation records.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/just-38pc-of-failed-asylum-seekers-deported-2229555.html

Nodin

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Maybe I missed it in there(...........)out the problem.

You might be as good as to show me the source of the idea that the majority are still here....