Migrants hold candle-lit march

Nodin

Einhard wrote: »

Applying for political asylum when one has no grounds to do would seem to me an abuse of the system.

................

..which would require all applicants to know in advance whether or not their claim was valid. Were that the case, one might wonder why theres lawyers.

Einhard

Nodin wrote: »

..which would require all applicants to know in advance whether or not their claim was valid. Were that the case, one might wonder why theres lawyers.

Ah don't play that game Nodin. You know as well as I that many asylum seekers are really economic migrants chancing their arms. Your own approval figure of .01% is clear evidence of that. Unless you seriously think that the other 99.99% are genuinely surprised at the fact that their not actually political refugees!

EGAR

Einhard wrote: »

You sought to imply that anyone who raises legitimate questions illegal immigrants does so from bigotry. That sounds pretty ad honinem to me, and completely bogus too.

I sought to imply nothing, my dear, I stated my opinion to which I am perfectly entitled just as you are to yours. If you think that my opinion is bogus then I cannot help you, since I was not aware that you are living in my head and know what I am thinking. Don't you go now and chug your toys out of the pram because in the real world people do have different opinions all the time .

Nodin

Einhard wrote: »

Ah don't play that game Nodin. You know as well as I that many asylum seekers are really economic migrants chancing their arms. Your own approval figure of .01% is clear evidence of that. Unless you seriously think that the other 99.99% are genuinely surprised at the fact that their not actually political refugees!

I dislike sweeping generalisations.

There's a vast number of reasons - valid and otherwise - to apply for asylum, other than politics. These days the states recognises being persecuted for ones sexuality is valid, whereas at one stage it didn't. Does that mean that everyone who applied on those grounds formerly was "chancing their arms"?

Einhard

EGAR wrote: »

I sought to imply nothing, my dear, I stated my opinion to which I am perfectly entitled just as you are to yours. If you think that my opinion is bogus then I cannot help you, since I was not aware that you are living in my head and know what I am thinking. Don't you go now and chug your toys out of the pram because in the real world people do have different opinions all the time .

I know your opinion is bogus because, much as I don't live in your head (for which I'm entirely grateful), I do live in my own, and know that my comments on this thread, and those have others, aren't motivated by racism or anything remotely like it. If you can't argue with people without impugning their integrity with cheap shots, best not to argue at all.

Nodin wrote: »

I dislike sweeping generalisations.

There's a vast number of reasons - valid and otherwise - to apply for asylum, other than politics. These days the states recognises being persecuted for ones sexuality is valid, whereas at one stage it didn't. Does that mean that everyone who applied on those grounds formerly was "chancing their arms"?

Yes, it was a generalisation. I would include all persecution, including sexual, under political, because in such situations there is generally no political will to prevent or alleviate that persecution.

My point stands though- a large number of those coming to Ireland looking for political/sexual asylum are, in reality, seeking economic asylum. I don't have a problem with them doing so- the Irish have been doing it for centuries- but those that are are chancing their arms. And when found out, should be deported.

MAR86

Nodin wrote: »

MAR86 wrote: »

I wish there was a way to keep the Roma gypsies out of Ireland but a few years ago EU obliged us to give them passports and stop discriminating them, .............

What a bunch of nazis that EU lot are.

Yep, they are, I know you are ironic, but just think of the way they're taking you're money and deciding on your legislation, I am sure they are just good Christians trying to help Ireland

MAR86

EGAR wrote: »

MAR86 wrote: »

but I do blame EU for forcing Romania to give gypsies passports.

And why not?? Even dogs and cats are allowed to travel within Europe with a passport and we are talking human beings, not vermin! I do not like the implication of this comment made by you about your fellow country men and women.

And I don't expect anyone to like my comments and they are my fellow country men....I refuse to believe that beggars, criminals, murderers and thiefs have the right to travel to steal from another country, to ask for asylum when no one asked them to leave romania...but hey, I am sure you'd take one home as pet,as you said your cat or dog

Cavehill Red

KINGVictor wrote: »

Cavehill, can you provide sources to back up your assertions there? I am highly interested in the part where you said that " the remainder managed to stay by marrying EU citizens" and I am even more curious about "Nigerians leaving for the UK and reapplying under new identities".

As this is a discussion forum, it is only right that posters provide proof to back up their claims.

I've done this time and time again. Here's how this goes. I provide the evidence. Then someone comes along and says, but lots of people got turned down on appeal, it doesn't mean the Nigerians are all crooks, even though the facts indicate that the refusal rate was way, way lower for all other nationalities, some of whose stats were likely slightly skewed by Nigerians successfully passing themselves off as, for example, Congolese, before being refused anyway because their stories were nonsense. Then the argument will be shifted away from the uncomfortable fact, either towards accusing the Dept of Justice of racism, or else to a 'we are where we are' demand that we should just all ignore the fact that thousands of Nigerians, the vast majority, abused our immigration system and the asylum system intended for the benefit of the genuinely at risk, since they've already got away with it and are already here. That's what's happened every other time I've produced these stats, and I do hope that perhaps we might actually address the issue this time instead of trying to shovel it back under the carpet. But I don't have much hope of that. People find being honest very difficult when it comes to this issue, apparently. So, let's go.

Previously on this channel, the CSO and Dept of Justice provided the stats. Now they are processed by ORAC. ORAC no longer provides breakdown of asylum claim outcomes by nationality (effectively a censorship of the truth.) However, somewhere I have the paper reports from the mid-2000s, when asylum claims peaked and Nigerians topped the list every year, never less than 1 in 5 of all claims and often more than 1 in 4, in in those reports it indicates that some years, while the average for other nationalities was about 80% refusal, for Nigerians it was well into the upper 90s. Annoyingly, the CSO statistics do not provide these breakdowns by nationality either.

A review of the ORAC annual reports shows that fewer than 1 in 10 overall were being granted asylum. Recently, with the belated introduction of unfalsifiable fingerprinting technology and better co-operation with the British authorities, the approval rate has now fallen to under 2%.

So, basically, either you can take me at my word that the Nigerian rate was out of kilter and in the high 90 percentiles for refusal, or you can not do so, in which case the average refusal at the peak immigration period was STILL over 90%. Either way, 9 in ten (I'm claiming 19 in 20) of Nigerians who claimed asylum during the peak years were considered to be illegitimate by the Dept of Justice. Nowadays, it's even higher, as the system is more foolproof.

I'll have a dig around tomorrow for the paper files for you if I remember.

Now your specific question about Nigerian applications being abandoned due to marriage to EU citizens (thereby entitling them to residency) and to the phenomenon of Nigerians going back and forth to Britain and applying often in both, after refusals in one or the other, has been well-documented. Operation Gull uncovered many examples of benefits abuse, multiple asylum claims and cases where Nigerians earning over $8,000 per month in Nigeria were nevertheless claiming benefits here and in Britain, as well as going back and forth to pursue claims.

Another Garda inquiry estimated that between 10-15% of marriages between Nigerians or Pakistanis and EU citizens, especially Eastern European women, were fraudulent sham marriages conducted to obtain residency rights. In many cases, women who had never lived here were paid to fly to Ireland for the marriage. This topic was the subject of a documentary earlier this year.