Asylum seekers waiting 10 years for decision

delthedriver

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

€69.5 million in 2011.

That doesn't come out of the social welfare budget, however to put in in context, it is equivalent to 0.33% of the social welfare budget for that year.

Charity is very much "at home".

A lot of people get confused between asylum seekers and, say, Nigerians. That's a polite way of saying some people conflate skin colour with asylum status.

Asylum seekers are reasonably rare in this society, they do not choose where they live, they tend to live away from the mainstream community. They do not get cars, and they do not get more than €19 personal income per week (plus €9 per child).


Yes, (2011) new arrivals claiming asylum have been down something like 33% on 2010%. No figures for 2012 or 2013 yet.

There is just over 1 asylum seeker to every 1,000 people in this society. I actually think this is about where one should expect it to be.

No I am not confusing Asylum seekers with Nigerians.
There is a specific centre housing asylum seekers which I am familiar with ,where the guests are driving cars. Fair play to them if they can drive a car on €19 per week.
If they can afford to run a car, they can afford to contribute towards their accommodation. As a taxpayer I am happy to pay my fair share, but these guys are taking the piss.

Celly Smunt

After reading the thread I have come to the conclusion that if we kick out all the asylum seekers we'll have loads of money and no Irish person will be poor.

Cody Pomeray

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If a decision goes against them it should be final, no appeals.

Can't be done.

Even if it were legally possible (and it is not), the amount of (successful) judicial reviews of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal coming before the High Court tells its own story.

The Tribunal appears to suffer from incompetence. Although its members are all capable Barristers at Law in their own rights, the vast majority are Fianna Fáil political activists, and (co-incidentally!) two are former Fianna Fáil ministers.

Is this a co-incidence?

Maybe it just so happens that the most eminent people to hear refugee appeals are former Fianna Fáilers, maybe they can sympathize with those in political exile.

On the other hand, these sorts of overt political appointments may, I suggest, lack adequate skills. And so, we badly need an appropriate review, aka judicial review, which delays things, but ensures that bad mistakes do not lead to irreversible consequences.

delthedriver wrote: »

There is a specific centre housing asylum seekers which I am familiar with ,where the guests are driving cars. Fair play to them if they can drive a car on €19 per week

Maybe they had money for a car when they landed. Asylum doesn't mean you can't have any savings, even if that would apply to the overwhelming majority.

Gatling

Why cant the system be changed to a simple applicant refused asylum ,
Applicant must leave the state ,
This judicial review after review and never ending appeals is a total sham ,
How much money are all these legal avenue's costing the state alone ,

Nodin

CJC999 wrote: »

The reason many spend so long in asylum centres is because they delay the inevitable by fighting and appealing decisions. They should be sent home or to where they came from and told to make their appeal from there. Why should this Country have to house and feed anyone that's not entitled to be here let alone fund court costs which can run into millions defending asylum appeals. We need to take the same stance as Australia...basically "You are not from here and you are not getting in"

...so you'd like Ireland to withdraw from the Geneva conventions then.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Nodin wrote: »

...so you'd like Ireland to withdraw from the Geneva conventions then.

Yes. The convention is of no benefit to Ireland.

Nodin

CJC999 wrote: »

Yes. The convention is of no benefit to Ireland.

Your concern for your fellows is noted.

delthedriver

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can't be done.

Even if it were legally possible (and it is not), the amount of (successful) judicial reviews of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal coming before the High Court tells its own story.

The Tribunal appears to suffer from incompetence. Although its members are all capable Barristers at Law in their own rights, the vast majority are Fianna Fáil political activists, and (co-incidentally!) two are former Fianna Fáil ministers.

Is this a co-incidence?

Maybe it just so happens that the most eminent people to hear refugee appeals are former Fianna Fáilers, maybe they can sympathize with those in political exile.

On the other hand, these sorts of overt political appointments may, I suggest, lack adequate skills. And so, we badly need an appropriate review, aka judicial review, which delays things, but ensures that bad mistakes do not lead to irreversible consequences.

Maybe they had money for a car when they landed. Asylum doesn't mean you can't have any savings, even if that would apply to the overwhelming majority.

Perhaps they have savings? So why is the taxpayer paying for everything ,accommodation, baby buggy, weekly allowance, food, legal fees for applications and appeals? If the have savings they should spend it on a Ryanair flight, one way!

delthedriver

Celly Smunt wrote: »

After reading the thread I have come to the conclusion that if we kick out all the asylum seekers we'll have loads of money and no Irish person will be poor.

No perhaps less poor!

oppenheimer1

General General wrote: »

Good luck getting that if you were self employed & your business went tits up.

This is a stupid notion that the self employed get nothing. They get means tested benefits.

Gatling

If the Geneva convention is been used as a base for protracted civil legal challenge's for asylum then the convention is being misused and abused ,
Especially if claimant's aren't from a actual warzone

Celly Smunt

delthedriver wrote: »

No perhaps less poor!

Bullshit

mikehn

Sorry if this point has been raised before but my understanding is that any asylum seeker seeking refuge in the EU must make their application at point of entry. As there would appear to be no direct access to Ireland for the majority of these applicants they have to transit through another EU country. So under EU law we have to refer them back to where they first landed. Correct me if Im wrong.
I have had experience of these refuge centres through my work and I think its an absolute disgrace the way that our government are handling the problem.
Over these last number of years the fabric of our society has been torn apart as a result of decisions made by our politicians. Their first responsibility should to their country and the Irish people, unfortunatly they seem to be afraid to take a stand on many issues quoting their responsibilities as Europeans.
If that is the case and if my understanding on the requirement of the Asylums seekers to seek asylum at point of entry to the EU then our politicians should be taken to task on this.

Nodin

mikehn wrote: »

Sorry if this point has been raised before but my understanding is that any asylum seeker seeking refuge in the EU must make their application at point of entry.

Nope. The "Dublin regulation"......

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=1

ParkRunner

Gatling wrote: »

Why cant the system be changed to a simple applicant refused asylum ,
Applicant must leave the state ,
This judicial review after review and never ending appeals is a total sham ,
How much money are all these legal avenue's costing the state alone ,

It is the courts who are granting injunctions which preventing the deportations when judicial review challenges are taken. The JRs themselves don't stop the deportations, the court injunctions do, so it is the judiciary who need to open their eyes to the ongoing abuse

Cody Pomeray

CJC999 wrote: »

Yes. The convention is of no benefit to Ireland.

What about EU law and the European Convention?

Should we leave the EU to save ourselves €70 million?

Would that be a smart move?

EF wrote: »

It is the courts who are granting injunctions which preventing the deportations when judicial review challenges are taken.

Do they have a choice? I believe Conka v. Belgium says they don't.

Mike 1972

Jesus was an asylum seeker you know.

jugger0 wrote: »

asylum seekers give us nothing and in these tough times would it not make more sense to look after our own?

You sir are talking through your vagina.

I Know of an asylum seeker whose claim was (eventually) accepted . Gained citizenship worked/paid taxes for years before starting a business and employing five people.

woodoo

One application and one appeal only for parents regardless of children born here. There is not point keeping them here 10 years for appeals. Aim to have a final decision within a year and then either let them stay or put them on a flight home.

Femme_Fatale

Gatling wrote: »

The benifits are worth waiting for when you think about it ,
At the moment there housed ,fed , so would you risk moving to a different country that won't even give that

If where they're from isn't that bad and they're just chancing their arm, the conditions are not attractive enough to stay that long. I'm not saying they should be living in luxury - I'd agree it can't be more than basic, but the way the centres are, to stay there indefinitely, for years, seems like the decision of people in a bad way.

CJC999 wrote: »

Why should this Country have to house and feed anyone that's not entitled to be here

International human rights law. Look up some of the really bad **** that's happening throughout the world now - I'm glad Ireland offers help to people from such places, and won't be using the spoofers as a stick to beat the genuine people with. But for a twist of fate, I could have been born in one of those countries too.

It's pretty ironic the way people who have a problem with Ireland helping out asylum-seekers... tend to be the same people who rage over the treatment of people in Islamic fundamentalist societies.

Ruudi_Mentari

They are lucky to be waiting at all look at oz a much larger island with plenty room to spare but no; they are sent packing off to Papa New Guinea to slop around for mud fish:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVm7NNo82JA

woodoo

When these asylum seekers and immigrants do settle are they really integrating?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ZXLQE00GY&feature=youtube_gdata_player&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DN0ZXLQE00GY%26feature%3Dyoutube_gdata_player&nomobile=1

Femme_Fatale

woodoo wrote: »

When these asylum seekers and immigrants do settle are they really integrating?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ZXLQE00GY&feature=youtube_gdata_player&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DN0ZXLQE00GY%26feature%3Dyoutube_gdata_player&nomobile=1

Some are, some aren't I suppose. As with anything.

woodoo

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Some are, some aren't I suppose. As with anything.

What if that is the future and not the wishy washy kumbya society the left envision.

Nodin

woodoo wrote: »

When these asylum seekers and immigrants do settle are they really integrating?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ZXLQE00GY&feature=youtube_gdata_player&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DN0ZXLQE00GY%26feature%3Dyoutube_gdata_player&nomobile=1

....what do you do with regards integration?

conorhal

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

If where they're from isn't that bad and they're just chancing their arm, the conditions are not attractive enough to stay that long. I'm not saying they should be living in luxury - I'd agree it can't be more than basic, but the way the centres are, to stay there indefinitely, for years, seems like the decision of people in a bad way.

International human rights law. Look up some of the really bad **** that's happening throughout the world now - I'm glad Ireland offers help to people from such places, and won't be using the spoofers as a stick to beat the genuine people with. But for a twist of fate, I could have been born in one of those countries too.

It's pretty ironic the way people who have a problem with Ireland helping out asylum-seekers... tend to be the same people who rage over the treatment of people in Islamic fundamentalist societies.

Reality check 1. There are 42 million people seeking asylum in the world today, the product of today's problems (not even tomorrows). What should Ireland do with them? Solve the problem there, or import it?

Reality check 2: Asylum seekers that arrive on these shores have the means to pay for air fares, false pasports, bribe officials in visa control, badiscally the Pamela Izevbekhai's of this world. We are not 'saving the needy', we are only rewarding the greedy. Is that the answer? And if so to what end? To salve liberal guilt, so that fabian socialists can quaff their champagne with a clear conscience with some tokenistic endeavour?

woodoo

Nodin wrote: »

....what do you do with regards integration?

All you do is ask questions nodin, you give nothing back. What is in it for me to engage with you... nothing.

Nodin

conorhal wrote: »

Reality check 1. There are 42 million people seeking asylum in the world today, the product of today's problems (not even tomorrows). What should Ireland do with them? Solve the problem there, or import it?

Reality check 2: Asylum seekers that arrive on these shores have the means to pay for air fares, false pasports, bribe officials in visa control, badiscally the Pamela Izevbekhai's of this world. We are not 'saving the needy', we are only rewarding the greedy. Is that the answer? And if so to what end? To salve liberal guilt, so that fabian socialists can quaff their champagne with a clear conscience with some tokenistic endeavour?

...not that you tar all with the same brush or anything. Or pose a false dichotomy as regards Irelands position.

You do realise that much of the asylum policy was formulated after WWII to prevent various horrors happening again....?

Nodin

woodoo wrote: »

All you do is ask questions nodin, you give nothing back. What is in it for me to engage with you... nothing.

So what do you do with regards integration? Is the xenophobia, paranoia, begrudgery and resentment we read here the sum total of it?

Femme_Fatale

conorhal wrote: »

Reality check 2: Asylum seekers that arrive on these shores have the means to pay for air fares, false pasports, bribe officials in visa control, badiscally the Pamela Izevbekhai's of this world.

Surely you don't believe they're all Pamela Izevbehkais?

We are not 'saving the needy', we are only rewarding the greedy.

"Greedy"? Why would a person with a family stay very long-term in a cramped dwelling getting less than €20 per week? Hardly because of greed. It certainly wouldn't be worth it long-term if where they're from isn't actually that bad.

Is that the answer? And if so to what end? To salve liberal guilt, so that fabian socialists can quaff their champagne with a clear conscience with some tokenistic endeavour?

No? That doesn't have to be the only reason like.

Duck's hoop

They're all people looking for a better life than the one they have at home, for whatever reason, and which of us can blame them for that?