Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Asylum Seeker protest on Kinsale Road. Mod warning in OP.
Options
Comments
-
Scare quotes! And more supposition on your part. Still no meat on those bones though.
Asylum seekers and immigrants are distinct groups. Was your friend attempting to emigrate to India? Or is it the case that they're neither?
And I see no meat on any single post of yours just interrogation on everybody else's post without you making one single valid point of your own but this is only a discussion as Tolerant from Cork has said and I am happy to participate... she was touring India and simply out stayed her visa... I don't have details on how she was discovered, caught and deported... all I got was an email saying she was deported from India due to aforementioned reasons and is now back in Ireland...0 -
Asylum applicants don't have to prove anything at the airport - just confirm their asylum application and provide general information for the later interview to determine the merits of the application.
She wouldn't be turned away at the airport for an inappropriate asylum application - only for not meeting the requirements for seeking asylum in the state.
if her basis never changed then she shouldn't have been given the right to land in the first place as domestic abuse is not a requirement for seeking asylum....0 -
Daisy Dasi wrote: »And I see no meat on any single post of yours just interrogation on everybody else's post without you making one single valid point of your own but this is only a discussion as Tolerant from Cork has said and I am happy to participate... she was touring India and simply out stayed her visa... I don't have details on how she was discovered, caught and deported... all I got was an email saying she was deported from India due to aforementioned reasons and is now back in Ireland...
So, really it has no bearing on asylum applicants, or immigrants, or racism for that matter.0 -
Daisy Dasi wrote: »if her basis never changed then she shouldn't have been given the right to land in the first place as domestic abuse is not a requirement for seeking asylum....
Again - who suggested the basis of her claim was changed at any point? Immigration officials never make any judgements on the merits of an asylum application - they just pass the info on to those who do.0 -
Immigration officials have the authority to refuse entry.. in fact I believe more than 2000 people were turned away at ports last year...Again - who suggested the basis of her claim was changed at any point? Immigration officials never make any judgements on the merits of an asylum application - they just pass the info on to those who do.0 -
Advertisement
-
More than 2,200 people were deported from Ireland or turned back at the country’s sea and airports last year, new figures reveal.
Applications for asylum stood at 946 in 2013, just below the previous year’s tally, but well down on the peak of 11,600 recorded in 2002.
A total of 1,890 people were refused entry at sea and airports.
Some 210 failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants were also deported from the State in 2013, with Nigeria, China, Mauritius, Albania, and Pakistan representing the countries to which most were returned.
Irish Examiner January 7th 20140 -
Daisy Dasi wrote: »Immigration officials have the authority to refuse entry.. in fact I believe more than 2000 people were turned away at ports last year...
sorry 1890 were turned away...0 -
Daisy Dasi wrote: »Immigration officials have the autority to refuse entry.. in fact I believe more than 2000 people were turned away at ports last year...
Not on the merits of the asylum application however. If the applicant passes their requirements - which have nothing to do with the application.0 -
Daisy Dasi wrote: »sorry 1890 were turned away...
Because they didn't qualify as applicants, not because of the basis for their applications.0 -
....the first country they enter, not the first safe country they come into, and - as explained in the link I gave - you may transit through countries without having been deemed to have entered there.
How do you define 'transit' as in an airport transit lounge or simply moving over land hoping from one to the next. How does one 'Transit' over land to another country say from Italy, Spain or Greece.
Can one just say at the Spanish border, 'No, I do not want to claim asylum here, as I want to transit to Ireland' thereby you have not 'entered' Spain?
Therefore anyone who has entered Ireland from an another country they have already entered before should be deported to said country, right?
Anyway, straight from the horses mouth.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33153_en.htmApplication in an international transit area of an airport
Where a third-country national applies for asylum in an international transit area of an airport of a Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining the application.
The above quote is relevant because one is usually checked before departure that they have a valid visa to enter a country. At least that is the way of it for Australia and NZ. My OH was not allowed board a flight to NZ because she forgot to get her e-visa thing online. They just would not give her the boarding pass. Another case, we were on the way to Fiji from Sydney but her residency visa sticker was on her old passport. She had to go home to get her old passport to prove she could return to Sydney, as they would not allow us to check in. So how do people just rock up in a countries airport with no visa with them? If one says that they have no visa but want to claim asylum then shouldn't they be doing so in that countries airport as descibed by the link above? This is actually a curiosity. Maybe Australia and NZ are much stricter in this regard?
Anyway, the only way I can see this so, is that someone who buys a one way ticket to Ireland via an airport transit lounge in Europe can therefore claim asylum. Anyone else should be deported. Am I correct?0 -
Advertisement
-
That's not necessarily true. The determining bodies and the courts do come across situations, especially involving women, where internal relocation is unsuitable in circumstances of some form of domestic abuse. This is especially the case in very primitive, patriarchal societies, where the country of origin information on file would further indicate that the local police authorities are incompetent. It does happen.Daisy Dasi wrote: »Domestic abuse as in any other country in the world can be sorted with a DIVORCE or local police intervention.... no need to run to the other side of the world... the next city would suffice
"Abuse" is a ridiculously broad term. It can take in anything from FGM, to rape, to domestic violence, to emotional abuse.
Although most asylum stories are fabricated or not grounds for granting refugee status, we should stop short of any automatic presumption that claims of abuse are inherently without merit.
No.Anyway, the only way I can see this so, is that someone who buys a one way ticket to Ireland via an airport transit lounge in Europe can therefore claim asylum. Anyone else should be deported. Am I correct?0 -
No.
Really?
How do you explain how there are so few applications for asylum made at Dublin airport? Last year, 85% of applicants made their application for asylum directly at the Office of Refugee Application Commissioner in Mount Street, Dublin.
jank raises an issue that is routinely swept under the carpet under the utter falsehood that Dublin regulations entitle people to claim asylum wherever they want and no-one dare even question, the mysterious arrival of tens of thousands of people from lands - half a world away without so much as a passport.0 -
Really?
How do you explain how there are so few applications for asylum made at Dublin airport? Last year, 85% of applicants made their application for asylum directly at the Office of Refugee Application Commissioner in Mount Street, Dublin.
jank raises an issue that is routinely swept under the carpet under the utter falsehood that Dublin regulations entitle people to claim asylum wherever they want and no-one dare even question, the mysterious arrival of tens of thousands of people from lands - half a world away without so much as a passport.
I'm sure somebody will have a perfectly valid explanation quite soon.....;)
Undocumented is the way to go,and is recognised throughout the Western World as THE only way to circumvent troublesome rules and regulations.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
-
Don't all rush in to answer any of my questions.
To repeat according to the rules set out by the Dublin Regulation, if someone has already 'entered' (as in set foot outside the airport or port of arrival) a EU country and this is known by the authorities, they cannot claim asylum here and should be deported to said country of first entry. If this is not disputed, then I take it as a given.
Which begs the question, how many have arrived here by port via airport? And why so few lodging asylum at the airport? Again, this is just a curiosity.0 -
Don't all rush in to answer any of my questions.
To repeat according to the rules set out by the Dublin Regulation, if someone has already 'entered' (as in set foot outside the airport or port of arrival) a EU country and this is known by the authorities, they cannot claim asylum here and should be deported to said country of first entry. If this is not disputed, then I take it as a given.
Which begs the question, how many have arrived here by port via airport? And why so few lodging asylum at the airport? Again, this is just a curiosity.
It's not remotely curious. There's no obligation on an asylum seeker to use Dublin airport for their application. Let's take a notional, entirely legitimate asylum claimant from, say, Iraq. They buy a through ticket to Ireland, via the transit area in CDG, and arrive in Dublin airport. They can opt to claim asylum there, or they can opt to claim asylum at ORAC, which is where they'll be sent by Immigration at the airport in any case. Nothing wrong or curious in making either choice.
Now, let's take the case of a claimant who has been smuggled in to the country, or has opted to not claim asylum in other states they've passed through - mix of legit and strategic reasons for not coming through / claiming asylum at the airport. They'll go straight to ORAC too. Some will have/produce no documentation for strategic reasons, and some may not have had any on entering the country. It's potentially a mix of economic migrants and entirely legitimate asylum applicants. Is the ratio 92% to 8%? Could be, or perhaps the appraisal system is too harsh or lax in it's judgements, but it's pretty much a red herring to suggest that applications direct to ORAC are bound to be suspicious, or curious.0 -
It's not remotely curious. There's no obligation on an asylum seeker to use Dublin airport for their application. Let's take a notional, entirely legitimate asylum claimant from, say, Iraq. They buy a through ticket to Ireland, via the transit area in CDG, and arrive in Dublin airport. They can opt to claim asylum there, or they can opt to claim asylum at ORAC, which is where they'll be sent by Immigration at the airport in any case. Nothing wrong or curious in making either choice.
I have nothing wrong about that in theory but as anyone who has traveled via CDG will know your passport is checked three times by Security officials and airport staff. Is it possible for someone with no documentation or no visa to get through the boarding process? How many actually come via this way. Are there stats available?Now, let's take the case of a claimant who has been smuggled in to the country, or has opted to not claim asylum in other states they've passed through - mix of legit and strategic reasons for not coming through / claiming asylum at the airport. They'll go straight to ORAC too. Some will have/produce no documentation for strategic reasons, and some may not have had any on entering the country. It's potentially a mix of economic migrants and entirely legitimate asylum applicants. Is the ratio 92% to 8%? Could be, or perhaps the appraisal system is too harsh or lax in it's judgements, but it's pretty much a red herring to suggest that applications direct to ORAC are bound to be suspicious, or curious.
Well if 92% are bogus and 8% seem legit then given the laws of average you of course will have the view that most of these are scamers and/or economic migrants. Some groups are more likely to act like this than others mind. As the law stands if they are smuggled in and have traveled through other EU countries then they are to be deported to said country. I suppose this is why documentation of their travel is purposely destroyed and how they can usually offer no explanation to how they arrived in the country, as if they arrived via an airport at least immigration Gardai will know from the flight manifest that they went from X to Y via Z transiting.
Also, can you elaborate the bit on bold. What are the legitimate reasons to not claim asylum in the first safe EU country you arrive in (as required by law). What are the strategic reasons for not doing so? Do you admit there is asylum shopping going on?0 -
It's not possible to get through CDG without documentation afaik. But why introduce this new variable? You asked why so few asylum applications at Dublin airport - the answer is that applicants, even those with documentation, have entirely legitimate reasons for applying directly to ORAC, and not the airport.I have nothing wrong about that in theory but as anyone who has traveled via CDG will know your passport is checked three times by Security officials and airport staff. Is it possible for someone with no documentation or no visa to get through the boarding process? How many actually come via this way. Are there stats available?
A lot of applications are disguising economic migration attempts for sure.Well if 92% are bogus and 8% seem legit then given the laws of average you of course will have the view that most of these are scamers and/or economic migrants.
This happens - if there's sufficient evidence that thus is the case. Usually at the port of entry.Some groups are more likely to act like this than others mind. As the law stands if they are smuggled in and have traveled through other EU countries then they are to be deported to said country.
Sure.I suppose this is why documentation of their travel is purposely destroyed and how they can usually offer no explanation to how they arrived in the country, as if they arrived via an airport at least immigration Gardai will know from the flight manifest that they went from X to Y via Z transiting.
Asylum shopping? Ireland would be a poor choice if that's the case. It rejects more applications than other states. If someone was smuggled in - say in a lorry container - they may well have passed through other EU states, but not had any opportunity to claim asylum there - hence a legitimate case for asylum application following arrival without papers, via other Dublin II convention states. It might well be uncommon or unlikely, but it requires the same degree of due process as any other application. The strategic reasons for not producing documents should be obvious - it maximises the chances of success for asylum claims that shouldn't otherwise have much hope of success.Also, can you elaborate the bit on bold. What are the legitimate reasons to not claim asylum in the first safe EU country you arrive in (as required by law). What are the strategic reasons for not doing so? Do you admit there is asylum shopping going on?0 -
It's not possible to get through CDG without documentation afaik. But why introduce this new variable? You asked why so few asylum applications at Dublin airport - the answer is that applicants, even those with documentation, have entirely legitimate reasons for applying directly to ORAC, and not the airport.
It is not a new variable, I asked it before. Therefore you acknowledge that it is very very hard, almost impossible to get into Ireland from outside the EU via another airport like CDG with no documentation or with no visa. Then why are there so many applicants with no documentation. What are the stats of people who present themselves at ORAC and comply by the law who transit only though an airport? Are there any statistics available?A lot of applications are disguising economic migration attempts for sure.
Agreed, vast vast majority. The appeals and deportation process is being abused by these people as well.This happens - if there's sufficient evidence that thus is the case. Usually at the port of entry.
As per above, how many people who are awaiting a decision have had no documentation or have been in another EU country already.Asylum shopping? Ireland would be a poor choice if that's the case. It rejects more applications than other states.
More than Switzerland?
http://nationalmirroronline.net/new/switzerland-rejects-2700-nigerian-asylum-seekers/About 2,700 asylum seekers came into our country last year and almost none of them got asylum because they have not got enough reasons to become refugees in our country,” Sommaruga saidIf someone was smuggled in - say in a lorry container - they may well have passed through other EU states, but not had any opportunity to claim asylum there - hence a legitimate case for asylum application following arrival without papers, via other Dublin II convention states. It might well be uncommon or unlikely, but it requires the same degree of due process as any other application. The strategic reasons for not producing documents should be obvious - it maximises the chances of success for asylum claims that shouldn't otherwise have much hope of success.
As you say, this is uncommon. How many of the people currently awaiting processing arrived via this method? It is also illegal to enter a country this way never mind highly dangerous. As you say, it is also maximises the chance of asylum even though the vast majority of these people who are small in number would be economic migrants which is why there is a pull factor to dump your passport before entering Ireland.
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.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24956421/australia-hails-extraordinary-success-halting-boatpeople/0 -
More than Switzerland?
Looks like it.
2013 figures - First instance decisions on (non-EU) asylum applications:
Switzerland
16,595 applicants
Positive decisions (refugee status, humanitarian reasons, subsidiary protection) - 6,390
Ireland
840 applicants
Positive decisions (refugee status, humanitarian reasons, subsidiary protection) - 1500 -
Advertisement
-
It is not a new variable, I asked it before. Therefore you acknowledge that it is very very hard, almost impossible to get into Ireland from outside the EU via another airport like CDG with no documentation or with no visa. Then why are there so many applicants with no documentation. What are the stats of people who present themselves at ORAC and comply by the law who transit only though an airport? Are there any statistics available?
It's a variable to the example I presented. Illegally entering the country is not a precursor to automatic asylum rejection btw - you can successfully claim asylum having entered the country without a visa.0 -
It's a variable to the example I presented. Illegally entering the country is not a precursor to automatic asylum rejection btw - you can successfully claim asylum having entered the country without a visa.
This I understand but if you enter from another EU country you have already been in, then by law you are to be sent back.
Been asking for and looking myself for statistics on the breakdowns on entry. Not much there.0 -
This I understand but if you enter from another EU country you have already been in, then by law you are to be sent back.
Indeed - and as I said, this happens at port of entry all the time. Once someone is in the country however, and isn't prepared to admit they could have claimed asylum in a different state, and there's no proof of their failure to apply in that state, then it's difficult to send them back to that unknown state.0 -
Indeed - and as I said, this happens at port of entry all the time. Once someone is in the country however, and isn't prepared to admit they could have claimed asylum in a different state, and there's no proof of their failure to apply in that state, then it's difficult to send them back to that unknown state.
Thats true of course, but the downside for the asylum seeker is that their credibility is undermined thus rendering their applications unlikely to be sustained. Lies heaped upon lies does not a credible case make.
Hence, also, that low rate of acceptance you touched upon, as if it were something that should be homogeneous across all states, regardless of who makes the claims and in what proportion.0 -
No. They don't.Thats true of course, but the downside for the asylum seeker is that their credibility is undermined thus rendering their applications unlikely to be sustained. Lies heaped upon lies does not a credible case make.
I'm not sure why you think (or believe I think) there should be a homogenous success/failure rate in applications across all states? I posted up the comparison with Switzerland because it was suggested we might be a better option to Switzerland for 'asylum shoppers' - and if you buy into the concept of 'asylum shopping', I'm simply pointing out we might not be that attractive on that basis.Hence, also, that low rate of acceptance you touched upon, as if it were something that should be homogeneous across all states, regardless of who makes the claims and in what proportion.0 -
No. They don't.
I'm not sure why you think (or believe I think) there should be a homogenous success/failure rate in applications across all states? I posted up the comparison with Switzerland because it was suggested we might be a better option to Switzerland for 'asylum shoppers' - and if you buy into the concept of 'asylum shopping', I'm simply pointing out we might not be that attractive on that basis.
Fair enough.
But I think the penultimate consideration for those who would ruthlessly abuse the asylum system is not acceptance rate. It's the probability of being removed and in what kind of timescale. There are other considerations too such as the ability to work illegally and of course the access to education, food, medical attention for ones entire family, etc etc on the taxpayers dime.
Last but far from least, the herds of fools queueing up to believe you. Listen to them long enough, you may well start to believe your own lies and start spitting at the hand that feeds.0 -
Fair enough.
But I think the penultimate consideration for those who would ruthlessly abuse the asylum system is not acceptance rate. It's the probability of being removed and in what kind of timescale. There are other considerations too such as the ability to work illegally and of course the access to education, food, medical attention for ones entire family, etc etc on the taxpayers dime.
Last but far from least, the herds of fools queueing up to believe you. Listen to them long enough, you may well start to believe your own lies and start spitting at the hand that feeds.
Against that you have to stack up the attraction of an asylum system that curbs any real possibility of work, compared to the simpler alternatives of straightforward black economy employment as an illegal migrant, or seeking asylum in another EU state that allows applicants to seek employment legally. Then there's the less-than-attractive social conditions of staying within the asylum process here, possibly contributing to the fact that the numbers of asylum applicants here are small compared to most other EU states.0 -
OK, care to elaborate?
Why don't you do some basic investigations for yourself?Don't all rush in to answer any of my questions.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no asylum and immigration legal experts among us in this thread. Most of us are basing our knowledge on opinions on information which we have sought out by ourselves, including information on the various exceptions to the Dublin regulations in their evolving forms.
This includes, or has included, circumstances where the Applicant has transited through Greece, or where the Applicant has family residing in Ireland, or where the Applicant does not require an entry visa (e.g. a Bolivian national), or where the applicant has lived here for six months before making a claim, or where the Applicant is legally challenging the application of Dublin III to the facts of his case, and so on. There are many exceptions, which are easily discoverable to any person who makes an effort to find them.
So the answer to your question was "no" and the reasons are easily accessible. Application of the Dublin III (or its precursors) is not as automatic as people seem to believe.
By all means it's abused, by all means it falls short of what might be hoped for, but that's the legal situation. There are exceptions a-plenty.0 -
Against that you have to stack up the attraction of an asylum system that curbs any real possibility of work, compared to the simpler alternatives of straightforward black economy employment as an illegal migrant, or seeking asylum in another EU state that allows applicants to seek employment legally.
I have ten times more respect for any illegal immigrant working and not abusing the asylum system.
I have not researched the option of asylum applicants working in other countries, but I would imagine for it to work and be acceptable, applications would have to be dealt with in a timely manner and applicants would have to prove their applications are being made in good faith. Neither situation occurs here which is why it would be disastrous.Then there's the less-than-attractive social conditions of staying within the asylum process here, possibly contributing to the fact that the numbers of asylum applicants here are small compared to most other EU states.
I think that conflating the masses of economic tourists and opportunists with refugees makes this argument unreliable.
We exceed our obligations to bona fide refugees many times over and are extraordinarily generous in our provisions. Don't you agree?0 -
Advertisement
-
Not really. I'm talking only about asylum applicants - regardless of whether they're subsequently approved or rejected - the numbers are pretty low in the European context.I think that conflating the masses of economic tourists and opportunists with refugees makes this argument unreliable.
Again - not really. We have a problem with curbing the post-asylum legal appeals process to a reasonable duration - that's our asylum problem. If that was sorted out, the quality of our provision to bona fide refugees doesn't look that great tbh. The only reason it sustains is because the waters are muddied by frustration with economic migrants taking advantage of asylum mechanisms we've failed to get in order, timewise.We exceed our obligations to bona fide refugees many times over and are extraordinarily generous in our provisions. Don't you agree?0
Advertisement