Asylum Seeker protest on Kinsale Road. Mod warning in OP.

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'd not agree with that as a general statement,however if the word "modern" was inserted befoe "Asylum" I night be persuaded to give it a "Like".
Irelands Asylum process has been a proven success since the inception of this Republic,with many hundreds of individuals and families remaining as testimony to that fact.

I'm not sure what 'modern' asylum is supposed to be, but the definition of, and applicability of, refugee status has remained unchanged for a long time now.

AlekSmart wrote: »

You can argue Nonsense here for sure,however both Countries mentioned do have a track record of being VERY willing to alter their approach to "International Conventions" across a broad range of topics when it is considered to be in their National Interest.

No need for the scare quotes. Other states breaking the law isn't any sort of rationale for this state breaking the law (as O'Doherty would propose).

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

Therefore,you may well be labelling a VERY significant number of people as "Dishonest " here,which might not be your intention ?

My intention - quite clearly, was to highlight your dishonesty in attempting to shift goalposts, and conflate one issue with another.

And I said. I'm not interested in that game.

mandrake04

jank wrote: »

Australia have had an issue with boat people as you may have heard. There was a built in incentive for human traffickers to collect money of people and smuggle them on a boat to Christmas Island. The new liberal government had put in place a law that stopped these boats in their tracks by turning back ALL boats. They have also implemented off shore processing centres.

They only had to to turn back 12 boats compared to 268 boats during the same period of the previous year. There's has only been one boat arrival of 157 since 19th December that's a drop of 19000 in a year.

Scott Morrison vowed that any irregular boat arrivals without visas would never be settled in Australia even if their asylum claim was successful by sending them to other countries once processed and then take the same number from UN refugee camps.

This took Australia off the shopping list and paying $10,000 for uncertainty killed the people smugglers business.

Australia is doing a deal with Cambodia to take at least a 1000 successful asylum applicants from the offshore centres at $40,000 a head, Those who are not found to genuine asylum seekers will be sent back to where ever they came from.

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

My intention - quite clearly, was to highlight your dishonesty in attempting to shift goalposts, and conflate one issue with another.

And I said. I'm not interested in that game.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken in the clarity of your intention.

Just to be 100% on my "dishonesty".

There is an association in many peoples minds between Asylum Seeking,Refugee Status and Immigration (particularly Illegal Immigration).

Whether You agree with that association does not,of itself,make it dishonest to refer to it.

There's no shifting of goalposts on this topic,other than that which naturally occurs in the real world.

The subject is a constantly changing one,and will remain so,with Laws,applications and personalities constantly changing,even moving between the definitions themselves.

Dishonesty ?

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

I'm not sure what 'modern' asylum is supposed to be, but the definition of, and applicability of, refugee status has remained unchanged for a long time now.

No need for the scare quotes. Other states breaking the law isn't any sort of rationale for this state breaking the law (as O'Doherty would propose).

I would define large proportions of "Modern Asylum Seeking" as a Multi-National Business model which seeks to exploit and further impoverish poorer and middle income people of foreign lands.

All this Business Model requires to survive and prosper,is a ready supply of Countries prepared to go along with the essential elements.

As Mandrake04 posts ....

They only had to to turn back 12 boats compared to 268 boats during the same period of the previous year. There's has only been one boat arrival of 157 since 19th December that's a drop of 19000 in a year.

......Australia appears to have decided not to support the "Modern Asylum Business Model".

Whether Ireland continues to do so is entirely open to discussion ?

alastair

mandrake04 wrote: »

I think it means economic refugees seeking economic asylum rather than the traditional asylum seekers who are seeking a safe refuge.

There's no such thing as 'economic asylum', any more than there's any meaning to 'modern asylum'.

mandrake04

alastair wrote: »

There's no such thing as 'economic asylum', any more than there's any meaning to 'modern asylum'.

Yep there is, Australia proved it by threatening to move those Irregular Maritime arrivals who successfully gained asylum somewhere else and they will never set foot in Australia ...ever.

Economic Asylum seekers stopped coming and seem to be concentrating on getting to New Zealand or Canada.

Australia is off the shopping list.

alastair

mandrake04 wrote: »

Yep there is, Australia proved it by threatening to move those Irregular Maritime arrivals who successfully gained asylum somewhere else and they will never set foot in Australia ...ever.

Economic Asylum seekers stopped coming and seem to be concentrating on getting to New Zealand or Canada.

Australia is off the shopping list.

Australia offloading refugees to other states doesn't remove the reality of those refugees being, eh, refugees. That's quite a different thing to an economic migrant. There's no such thing as 'economic asylum'.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

I think Alastair has made that perfectly clear. They should enjoy a comfort level in excess of anything provided a lifelong citizen. And then a little bit more for their pain.

He never made such a statement.

Aleksmart wrote:

The accepted wisdom appears to indicate that our newly unrestriced Immigrant Stream will comprise of "Highly Qualified Professionals" and other grades all
keen to get on the Employment/Business ladder in Ireland.

Why are you conflating immigration and asylum?

mandrake04

alastair wrote: »

Australia offloading refugees to other states doesn't remove the reality of those refugees being, eh, refugees. That's quite a different thing to an economic migrant. There's no such thing as 'economic asylum'.

Of course they are refugees no one is saying they are not, Australia is happy to take in up to 20,000 refugees from UN camps but only the ones they pick. Those asylum seekers who pay smugglers to get them to a country of their choosing do so for economic reasons, otherwise they would stay in countries like Indonesia which is safe but pretty poor.

Economic migrants can be granted visas, totally different. That's where you are confused.

Nodin

mandrake04 wrote: »

Of course they are refugees no one is saying they are not, Australia is happy to take in up to 20,000 refugees from UN camps but only the ones they pick. Those asylum seekers who pay smugglers to get them to a country of their choosing do so for economic reasons, otherwise they would stay in stay in countries like Indonesia which is safe.

Indonesia is hardly an ideal state let's face it. People are going to try to reach what they consider the best option for themselves and their families.

alastair

mandrake04 wrote: »

Of course they are refugees no one is saying they are not, Australia is happy to take in up to 20,000 refugees from UN camps but only the ones they pick. Those asylum seekers who pay smugglers to get them to a country of their choosing do so for economic reasons, otherwise they would stay in countries like Indonesia which is safe but pretty poor.

Economic migrants can be granted visas, totally different. That's where you are confused.

I'm not remotely confused. Refugees are not economic migrants. Unless you reckon all refugees from Sri Lanka should invest in sailing lessons, there's not too many alternatives to paying someone to transport them to their destination.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

He never made such a statement.

No.k.

Nodin wrote: »

Why are you conflating immigration and asylum?

I must admit I am pleasantly surprised with this line of questioning.

I used to think the blurring of the lines was of greater interest to those who propose popular innovative initiatives, like amnesties: as an expression of our deep admiration for filleting the system for years.

This kind of wisdom is traditionally accompanied by breathless hints of the sea of lawyers, doctors, accountants etc. just waiting to get out, contribute, give that old ethnic gene pool a stir, win the world cup for the lads and cook their own ******* food.

Good for you Nodin & alastair, for seeing the light.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

Nice try, but no thanks. Apples and Oranges.

And a few bananas?

Mod:

Poster banned.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Indonesia is hardly an ideal state let's face it.People are going to try to reach what they consider the best option for themselves and their families.

Perhaps it is worth asking,from the perspective of this thread,what elements constitute an "Ideal State" of which one can be a citizen of ?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Perhaps it is worth asking,from the perspective of this thread,what elements constitute an "Ideal State" of which one can be a citizen of ?

Stable, not prone to violence against minorities, its fairly obvious. Indonesia would not be on the list.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Stable, not prone to violence against minorities, its fairly obvious. Indonesia would not be on the list.

Are you speaking for all of the 252 million Indonesian people living there on all 13,466 islands?

Seems a little racist to me.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Are you speaking for all of the 252 million Indonesian people living there on all 13,466 islands?

Seems a little racist to me.

I'm speaking of the Indonesian state.
http://www.hrw.org/asia/indonesia

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

I'm speaking of the Indonesian state.
http://www.hrw.org/asia/indonesia

Human Rights Watch. How original of you.

What makes them a better authority than the 250 million people living there?

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Human Rights Watch. How original of you.

What makes them a better authority than the 250 million people living there?

A non-sequitur. While the track record of Indonesia has improved since the days of Suharto, that's hardly an achievement.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

A non-sequitur. While the track record of Indonesia has improved since the days of Suharto, that's hardly an achievement.

OK so,we're already aware that Ireland is'nt meeting this Achievement status either,so we can now add Indonesia.

Can we extrapolate somewhat from this and get a feel for the potential numbers involved in this....?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

OK so,we're already aware that Ireland is'nt meeting this Achievement status either,so we can now add Indonesia.

Can we extrapolate somewhat from this and get a feel for the potential numbers involved in this....?

I suggest you're being somewhat obtuse at this stage. Ireland could improve the conditions it offers those here, Indonesia is a far from suitable destination.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

I suggest you're being somewhat obtuse at this stage. Ireland could improve the conditions it offers those here, Indonesia is a far from suitable destination.

Obtuse ?

If you insist.

Nobody disagrees that Ireland could improve Asylum Seekers conditions.

Indeed,I would suggest that improvements are regularly made,as resources allow.

However this does not imply that Irelands Asylum Seekers are treated in a less than humane manner and with dignity,items supposedly denied most of the applicants in their home countries.

How is it obtuse to disagree with suggestions that overhauling or otherwise re-inventing a functional Asylum System should be a priority ?

Ireland has many areas of Administration and Government vying for funding,with each having to make it's own case for the cash.

The reality is Asylum Provision is NOT a priority case for additional funding,except perhaps where that funding is coming directly from an outside benefactor.(For example,how about tapping Nigeria for a few Bob to accept those of it's citizens unhappy with things in the Worlds 24th largest economy?).

Put it to a referendum perhaps,ask the Irish Voters to decide a priority list for our improving funding availability ?

Or would that suggestion be seen as obtuse also ?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Obtuse ?

If you insist.

Nobody disagrees that Ireland could improve Asylum Seekers conditions.

Indeed,I would suggest that improvements are regularly made,as resources allow.

However this does not imply that Irelands Asylum Seekers are treated in a less than humane manner and with dignity,items supposedly denied most of the applicants in their home countries.

"supposedly". It would be nice to have a post that argues the issues and doesn't insert implications as regards the validity of seeking asylum in the first place.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ireland has many areas of Administration and Government vying for funding,with each having to make it's own case for the cash.

Greater freedom of movement, being allowed cook their own food, less crowding, and a more efficient processing service would hardly be a major expense, given that it involves reform of existing bodies.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Put it to a referendum perhaps,ask the Irish Voters to decide a priority list for our improving funding availability ?.

Why would one do that with regard this issue as opposed to all others?

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

"supposedly". It would be nice to have a post that argues the issues and doesn't insert implications as regards the validity of seeking asylum in the first place.

Greater freedom of movement, being allowed cook their own food, less crowding, and a more efficient processing service would hardly be a major expense, given that it involves reform of existing bodies.

Why would one do that with regard this issue as opposed to all others?

Lots of things "would be nice",however you'll just have to make do with what you get...a bit like the put-upon Asylum Seeker I suppose ?

I don't view any of this as arguing,perhaps thats the problem,I'm merely stating my opinion on the situation and my own personal views on it.
I don't necessarily recognize all of your listed deficiencies as being valid however,due to my own experience.

Why not put the Asylum Provision issue to a vote ?
Surely important elements of Irish Regulations can be deliberated and voted upon should it be deemed necesssary ?

Why not consider a Swiss style system to reflect the electorates opinions on everyday regulatory issues ?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Lots of things "would be nice",however you'll just have to make do with what you get...a bit like the put-upon Asylum Seeker I suppose ?

I don't view any of this as arguing,perhaps thats the problem,I'm merely stating my opinion on the situation and my own personal views on it.
I don't necessarily recognize all of your listed deficiencies as being valid however,due to my own experience.

Why not put the Asylum Provision issue to a vote ?
Surely important elements of Irish Regulations can be deliberated and voted upon should it be deemed necesssary ?

Why not consider a Swiss style system to reflect the electorates opinions on everyday regulatory issues ?

Because this is a Republic, and we don't do direct democracy.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Because this is a Republic, and we don't do direct democracy.

Ah right,so is that still enough reason to keep the topic from the masses ?
I mean we could still say it's INdirect,kinda like an Irish solution to an Irish problem?
Particularly as,it appears that we are unique in Europe/The World in maintaining DP as our preferred Asylum applicants regime.

Thus far,whatever alternatives exist have not ben shown to benefit the Country as a whole,as opposed to merely being of benefit to the applicant.

conorh91

AlekSmart wrote: »

Why not put the Asylum Provision issue to a vote ?

Might (conceivably) happen.

There is a constitutional challenge to Direct Provision awaiting judgment in the High Court.

Although I can't imagine what kind of constitutional amendment would realistically follow, should the state lose and attempt to maintain direct provision.

mandrake04

Nodin wrote: »

Indonesia is hardly an ideal state let's face it. People are going to try to reach what they consider the best option for themselves and their families.

That's exactly right you said it yourself, they opt for the best economical country often living in Indonesia for months/years until they can secure a place in a boat. They are attracted by economic factors rather than fleeing to safety with only their shirt on their backs.....True Beggars can't be choosers

Now that that economic factor has been taken out of the equation they are concentrating going somewhere else.

mandrake04

alastair wrote: »

I'm not remotely confused. Refugees are not economic migrants. Unless you reckon all refugees from Sri Lanka should invest in sailing lessons, there's not too many alternatives to paying someone to transport them to their destination.

I never said they were economic migrants, an economic migrant can apply for a Permanent Resident visa these people don't qualify for PR.

Instead they get on a rickety boat, throw their papers overboard and then claim asylum when they reach Australia. They are people from troubled countries that are selecting which countries they want to claim asylum in, Australian government is now telling them sure we will process you for asylum alright but to ensure you didn't choose Australia for economic reasons you will be settled else where.... it won't be Australia. It now appears they are going to be settled in Cambodia, and funny enough the boats have stopped coming.