Visa amnesty for immigrants

Dub13

Should we go down this road....?Spain are,I was just reading this.

Spain opens visa amnesty for immigrants
07/02/2005 - 12:42:44

Illegal immigrants lined up at their consulates seeking documents to help them qualify to live and work in Spain under a three-month amnesty that began today.

The Socialist government projects about 800,000 illegal immigrants will apply by May 7. The goal is to reduce worker exploitation and tax evasion.

Under five previous amnesties during the past 15 years, about two million people – mostly from Latin America, north Africa and eastern Europe – who had arrived in Spain without proper documentation were legalised.

To qualify for amnesty, employers must provide evidence that applicants have a job, while applicants must document they have no criminal record in their home country and have lived in Spain since before last August.

When the three-month period ends, employers who hire illegal immigrants are subject to fines reaching.

***

So should we do the same...?

arcadegame2004

No! It is my firm opinion that if we did this it would constitute a huge pull factor for immigrants and we would be absolutely flooded. The Irish people, in my opinion, are totally opposed to such drivel!

You should not be rewarded for commiting a crime. Illegal immigration is a crime.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

No! It is my firm opinion that if we did this it would constitute a huge pull factor for immigrants and we would be absolutely flooded.

They have to show they lived in Spain since before August, if something similar was done here why would it be a pull factor?

The Irish people, in my opinion, are totally opposed to such drivel!

What are you basing this on? (and don't use the Citizenship referendum as "proof", that was nothing to do with immigration)

Hobbes

Frank got there first, but it would not encourage more people to come. It is currently giving an amnesty for the people who are there illegally. From what I recall illegals in Spain are seriously exploited.

Btw, Frank don't you know Arcade if the voice of the whole of Ireland by now. :rolleyes:

bobbyjoe

Good on Spain for showing some consideration for their immigrants. Recognising that immigration is an important feature of a progressive society and the contribution they make.
Doubt it would happen here but it wouldn't be the worst idea, considering that people have been waiting years to get processed.

arcadegame2004

Good on Spain for showing some consideration for their immigrants. Recognising that immigration is an important feature of a progressive society and the contribution they make.

There is the good and the bad. Immigration is a double-edged sword and by no means are all its consequences positive.

There is no law of nature that says letting in huge numbers of immigrants improves the lot of society. In the UK now public opinion is showing up in polls as well and truly fed up of being flooded with illegal migration, with 75% in the latest polls calling for tougher rules on immigration and asylum. The British people are exasperated by the politically-correct nonsense from certain left-wing politicians (like the Lib Dems)that endless immigration is inevitably a good thing. The British Labour government now seems likely to crack down on it, given the newspaper revelation that he feels people are right to be worried about loose immigration controls.

We must protect ourselves from terrorism, and even from people who, while perhaps being well meaning in their own eyes, can constitute a burden on the taxpayer in one form or another, as well as cheap-labour competition.

I propose an Australian-style immigration and asylum-system in Ireland, albeit with more comfortable living conditions for the applicants.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I propose an Australian-style immigration and asylum-system in Ireland, albeit with more comfortable living conditions for the applicants.

Immigration is totally different from asylum seeking.
Are you seriously suggesting we lock up people who are looking to emmigrate to this country in a similar fashion to how Australia treats asylum seekers? Or does it just depend on the colour of their skin? (and I'm not suggesting we lock up asylum seekers in that fashion either, whatever excuses people want to use for treating them that way, there is no way you could justify doing that to immigrants)

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

We must protect ourselves from terrorism

Oh yeah, how exactly do you propose doing this?

arcadegame2004

Oh yeah, how exactly do you propose doing this?

911 and Madrid showed that where Islamic terrorism is concerned, we are dealing with something far more extreme even than the IRA or the Loyalist terrori groups. They are in separate league altogether from the homegrown terrorists we have on this island.

We must do all in our power to stop AQ operatives from claiming asylum in Ireland. This scum deserves detention, not protection.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

911 and Madrid showed that where Islamic terrorism is concerned, we are dealing with something far more extreme even than the IRA or the Loyalist terrori groups. They are in separate league altogether from the homegrown terrorists we have on this island.

We must do all in our power to stop AQ operatives from claiming asylum in Ireland. This scum deserves detention, not protection.

You didn't answer my question. What do you suggest we do about it?

bobbyjoe

I propose an Australian-style immigration and asylum-system in Ireland, albeit with more comfortable living conditions for the applicants.

Think your getting immigration and asylum mixed up.
Should all those Americans working for banks in the IFSC have to spend a few months locked up while their papers are processed?

arcadegame2004

bobbyjoe wrote:

Think your getting immigration and asylum mixed up.
Should all those Americans working for banks in the IFSC have to spend a few months locked up while their papers are processed?

The asylum-seekers should be kept in reception centres and forbidden to get out (except to go home) until their asylum claims are processed.

bobbyjoe

The asylum-seekers should be kept in reception centres and forbidden to get out (except to go home) until their asylum claims are processed.

Like Mosney?
Or would you prefer them to be locked up?

MadsL

Is it just me, or are there flecks of foam in the corner of Arcade's avatars mouth?

arcadegame2004

bobbyjoe wrote:

Like Mosney?
Or would you prefer them to be locked up?

Like Mosney, but they wouldn't be allowed to leave, unless to leave the country - whereupon the Gardai would escort them to their plane.

Allowing asylum-seekers to move freely through this country allows potentially illegal-immigrants to escape deportation and this is unacceptable.

Drapper

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Like Mosney, but they wouldn't be allowed to leave, unless to leave the country - whereupon the Gardai would escort them to their plane.

Allowing asylum-seekers to move freely through this country allows potentially illegal-immigrants to escape deportation and this is unacceptable.

Dont agree.................. Some of the best nations in the world were built by migrants.... US Australia and even the Uk to an extent post WW2............. giving amnesty takes the illegality away from the current asylum seekers and get them in the PRSI tax net to contribute to the host nation..... Can't see the problem in that....... I think the Irish are greedy with the wealth and dont want to share it ...... ahhh the 1980's the shoe was on the other foot...... plenty of illegal irsh in the US and OZ ?

All agree.??

simu

Drapper wrote:

Dont agree.................. Some of the best nations in the world were built by migrants.... US Australia and even the Uk to an extent post WW2............. giving amnesty takes the illegality away from the current asylum seekers and get them in the PRSI tax net to contribute to the host nation..... Can't see the problem in that....... I think the Irish are greedy with the wealth and dont want to share it ...... ahhh the 1980's the shoe was on the other foot...... plenty of illegal irsh in the US and OZ ?

All agree.??

Yeah, give them a chance. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that there's quite a bit of exploitation of illegal workers happening in this country - 'twould be nice to do something about it now rather than it being the 2020 version of the industrial schools/Magdalen laundries scandals that have been revealed in recent years.

And I really don't see the connection between visa amnesty proposals and terrorism...

Drapper

simu wrote:

Yeah, give them a chance. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that there's quite a bit of exploitation of illegal workers happening in this country - 'twould be nice to do something about it now rather than it being the 2020 version of the industrial schools/Magdalen laundries scandals that have been revealed in recent years.

And I really don't see the connection between visa amnesty proposals and terrorism...

Well said Simu......

Maybe we shoulld get gas chambers in these detention centres too ?? hey arcadegame2004 ?? and give them blue and white striped uniforms or was that orange??........

arcadegame2004

Drapper wrote:

Well said Simu......

Maybe we shoulld get gas chambers in these detention centres too ?? hey arcadegame2004 ?? and give them blue and white striped uniforms or was that orange??........

I'll thank you to stop making out that anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi. That is a very undemocratic position to take. All of you here (who have been debating since the Citizenship referendum debate here) who are opposed to tougher immigration controls stated your opposition to the citizenship-law changes in the referendum, so let's stop pretending (as a few here are doing like Frank Grimes) that the issues are separate. They are far from separate. The campaign, on both sides, was fought on immigration. The only people who were going to be affected by it were immigrants. Therefore it related to immigration. Therefore the referendum result can be taken as a basis for analysing public opinion on immigration. It is a far more accurate sample than the MRBI or TNS/IMS surveys we see in our newspapers every so often, with a 60% turn out.

I believe that the Irish people are dead against any blanket amnesty for all asylum-seekers. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime and a crime should not be rewarded.

Granting an amnesty to all asylum seekers is effectively the same thing as an open-door immigration policy with zero restrictions. By bringing in a blanket amnesty, you are saying that ALL immigrants coming to Ireland will get to stay here and get citizenship, irrespective of whether they work or not. This is a crackpot idea and will bankrupt the health-service, and the social-welfare system, not to mention the competition for Irish jobs and housing on the basis of cheap labour competition, and the heightened racial tensions that would cause.

The people spoke in the Citizenship referendum, and if you seriously think that they weren't voting for reasons due to immigration, then I suggest you talk to some people who voted yes in the referendum and ask them why.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I believe that the Irish people are dead against any blanket amnesty for all asylum-seekers. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime and a crime should not be rewarded.

JESUS ****ING CHRIST MAN HOW MANY ****ING TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE NOT THE SAME ****ING THING????!??!?!?!?!

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I believe that the Irish people are dead against any blanket amnesty for all asylum-seekers. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime and a crime should not be rewarded.

Given your claim that all Irish emigrants pre-Independance were refugees, I'll make this simple for you.

Do you believe that every single illegal immigrant who left these shores for the US and further afield post-Independance should be turfed out of the current state they reside in? They have after all committed a crime...

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Granting an amnesty to all asylum seekers is effectively the same thing as an open-door immigration policy with zero restrictions. By bringing in a blanket amnesty, you are saying that ALL immigrants coming to Ireland will get to stay here and get citizenship, irrespective of whether they work or not.

Not if you support a similar system to that proposed by the Spanish authorities. Lets recap, shall we? Want me to walk you through it?

To qualify for amnesty, employers must provide evidence that applicants have a job, while applicants must document they have no criminal record in their home country and have lived in Spain since before last August.

I've put the relevant part of that quote in bold. Thats the darker text.

In addition, the quote also highlights the inaccuracy of your previous comment that:

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It is my firm opinion that if we did this it would constitute a huge pull factor for immigrants and we would be absolutely flooded.

I only mention that one because you have yet to acknowledge the fact that Frank and Hobbes have already pointed out your mistake. Care to comment, or are you too busy fantasising about the invading hordes?

arcadegame2004

To qualify for amnesty, employers must provide evidence that applicants have a job, while applicants must document they have no criminal record in their home country and have lived in Spain since before last August.

Do you seriously expect criminals to openly admit that they have a criminal record in their country of origin? Yeah right! HAHAHAHA!

Having a job on its own is not good enough. Non-EU citizens from the developing world constitute cheap-labour and must be barred from jobs where the relevant industry is not experiencing skills-shortages. They should be confined to skills-shortage jobs.

We need a points system, like Australia, to ensure that the only immigrants from the developing world let in are the skilled workers who can't be found from the Irish citizenry. I make no apologies to taking the patriotic option of protecting the jobs of Irish men and women.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Do you seriously expect criminals to openly admit that they have a criminal record in their country of origin? Yeah right! HAHAHAHA!

:rolleyes:

And whats to stop the Justice Department from running background checks? You'll really have to try harder Enoch, I know you usually grasp at straws, but I think you may have scraped the ar*e out of the bucket altogether...

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Having a job on its own is not good enough. Non-EU citizens from the developing world constitute cheap-labour and must be barred from jobs where the relevant industry is not experiencing skills-shortages. They should be confined to skills-shortage jobs.

Then why didn't you say that in the first place. We're not mind readers. I take it you now accept that this:

arcadegame2004 wrote:

By bringing in a blanket amnesty, you are saying that ALL immigrants coming to Ireland will get to stay here and get citizenship, irrespective of whether they work or not.

is bull? Can we have confirmation on that? Without a soundbite?

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I make no apologies to taking the patriotic option of protecting the jobs of Irish men and women.

You say patriotic, I say hysterical.

Tell you what, you run along there now and do a little research. I think sceptre has suggested some secondary school economics in the other Enoch-rails-against-the -darkies thread, start there and work you way forwards.

bobbyjoe

arcadegame2004: believe that the Irish people are dead against any blanket amnesty for all asylum-seekers. Illegal immigrants have committed a crime and a crime should not be rewarded.

An amnesty hasn't even been proposed (as far as I know)
Why don't you keep the hysteria for the things that you think are actualy happening.

arcadegame2004: Do you seriously expect criminals to openly admit that they have a criminal record in their country of origin? Yeah right! HAHAHAHA!

They have to have a clean criminal record from their home country. So if they have one they won't qualify or should they all be presumed guilty?

I make no apologies to taking the patriotic option of protecting the jobs of Irish men and women.

Its not a patriotic option you are talking about its something that would bring great shame and embarrassment to this country.

Frank Grimes

arcadegame2004 wrote:

All of you here (who have been debating since the Citizenship referendum debate here) who are opposed to tougher immigration controls stated your opposition to the citizenship-law changes in the referendum, so let's stop pretending (as a few here are doing like Frank Grimes) that the issues are separate.

I stated my reasons for objecting to that referendum at the time, and again I'll say it has nothing to do with immigration simply because it does not.
People will still want to come here as immigrants regardless of whether they can get citizenship or not.

Granting an amnesty to all asylum seekers is effectively the same thing as an open-door immigration policy with zero restrictions

In the context of this thread, that statement is wrong.

This is a crackpot idea and will bankrupt the health-service, and the social-welfare system, not to mention the competition for Irish jobs and housing on the basis of cheap labour competition, and the heightened racial tensions that would cause.

You forgot terrorism.
Are you serious about housing btw? Have you actually looked at how much houses cost these days? All these immigrants taking our jobs and working for nothing would never be able to afford a house.

I make no apologies to taking the patriotic option of protecting the jobs of Irish men and women.

There's nothing "patriotic" about what you're constantly spouting on this forum. Stop deluding yourself.

And, I'll never get tired of asking this, but can you explain to me how you propose keeping all these Islamist terrorists out of Ireland?

chewy

okay only baiting!

I am hereby putting arcadegame on my ignore list, so one can try to have a a discussion about immigration without his bigoted nonsense...anyone with me???

Drapper

chewy wrote:

okay only baiting!

I am hereby putting arcadegame on my ignore list, so one can try to have a a discussion about immigration without his bigoted nonsense...anyone with me???

YES

arcadegame2004

chewy wrote:

okay only baiting!

I am hereby putting arcadegame on my ignore list, so one can try to have a a discussion about immigration without his bigoted nonsense...anyone with me???

I'm not the bigoted one!

Drapper

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I'm not the bigoted one!

Ohh yes you are .................. if your kid came home with a boyfriend who was a refugee what would you do............ welcome him into your house or not?

arcadegame2004

I don't have children but if I did, I quite frankly would not care what race his/her boyfriend/girlfriend was. However, I don't really think any of the asylum-seekers, having crossed so many EU Western countries before getting here, can expect the Irish people to take them seriously when they claim that getting to Ireland was necessary to save their life. Really? Weren't they safe in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, or the UK? Don't think so! That's not bigotry, that's common sense. Ireland isn't exactly the nearest EU country to the zones of conflict, or to poor countries.

As far as I am concerned, you are not a genuine refugee for the purposes of the asylum and immigration system, unless you claim asylum in the first EU state you enter, and/or are fleeing war, famine or persecution.

Economic migration is what you are otherwise and I don't think it's appropriate to use the term "refugee" when referring to this particular category of immigrant, which, judging by the failure rate of asylum-applications (93% in 2003, and still the vast majority on appeal), constitutes the overwhelming majority of asylum-seekers. Saying someone is a refugee doesn't make it so.

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Economic migration is what you are otherwise and I don't think it's appropriate to use the term "refugee" when referring to this particular category of immigrant, which, judging by the failure rate of asylum-applications (93% in 2003, and still the vast majority on appeal), constitutes the overwhelming majority of asylum-seekers. Saying someone is a refugee doesn't make it so.

You are a refugee if you apply for refugee in another country. You are an aslyum seeker if you seek aslyum in another country.

Refugee is not an award of privilage. It is simply a description of the persons legal status. You are an aslyum seeker if you seek aslyum.

Now you may be turned down for aslyum. As your own stats point out a good portion of aslyum seekers are turned down for aslyum. They are still refugees.

Please, without ignoring the actual question, explain what exactly is wrong with our system or the system that we are required to have in place under UN law? Asylum seekers cannot work. They cannot claim welfare benenifit. They are not given money to decide their own food or their own accomondation. As you said most are eventually deported. How exactly is this system not working as it is.

billy the squid

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Like Mosney, but they wouldn't be allowed to leave, unless to leave the country - whereupon the Gardai would escort them to their plane.

Allowing asylum-seekers to move freely through this country allows potentially illegal-immigrants to escape deportation and this is unacceptable.

like auswitz so...:rolleyes:

I'll thank you to stop making out that anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi.

branding minorities as harmful to the country and locking them up in "camps" is what the nazis did, so if it barks like a dog, lifts its leg like a dog, chances are its a dog.

I'm not the bigoted one!

yes you are. you want to ban muslims from entering this country because the risk of terrorist attack, yet you neglect to mention terrorists of christian faith who were born in this country.

arcadegame2004

Please, without ignoring the actual question, explain what exactly is wrong with our system or the system that we are required to have in place under UN law? Asylum seekers cannot work. They cannot claim welfare benenifit. They are not given money to decide their own food or their own accomondation. As you said most are eventually deported. How exactly is this system not working as it is.

In not one single year have a significant number of bogus asylum claimants been deported. Read the following from the Irish Refugee Council website:

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/

[1] Since 1999, a total of 2004 persons have been deported from the State, 590 of them last year.
2,299 people were voluntarily repatriated in the period 1999 – 16th July this year.
Over 4,500 people were refused leave to land in Ireland in 2003.
Last year 1,174 people were recognised as refugees while 83 were given ‘leave to remain’."

So out of 60,000 asylum seekers, 59,000 are not recognised as refugees. And out of that how many have been deported or were voluntarily repatriated? 4,302! That is NOT most of the illegal immigrants!

The lawyers are having a field-day with all the mechanisms and loopholes in our laws allowing the asylum-seekers to drag the process out and out and out so that then they get to stay for years, put down roots, and before you know it the Left are carping on about how "we can't deport them now, they have friends family here, how 'heartless' it would be to deport them!" :rolleyes: .

The problem with the current system is that it allows people from safe countries to apply for asylum, thus making the backlog even worse. You are not a refugee if you come from a safe country. To me, refugee has connotations to "seeking refuge" from something. I refuse utterly to accept that coming from a poor country alone gives you to right to call yourself a refugee, and force your way into someone elses country and get automatic citizenship or residency. Poverty alone does not a refugee make.

If people want to come here for economic reasons then let them go through legal channels, including applying for work-permits. An Australian-style points system is needed to match workers to specific job-types that they have skills in, with the points being awarded only for job-types for industries experiencing skills-shortages. That way, we tailor our immigration policy to the needs of the Irish economy, and prevent Irish people losing their jobs to competition from cheap labour. The British Government has announced plans to introduce this kind of policy, so if what I am proposing is extreme, then so are they. Can't have it both ways.

The Citizenship referendum was, in my opinion, a positive step in removing the tricks and loopholes that reward illegal immigration, turning babies into passports. But more must be done.

We need a Irish or EU list of safe-countries, from which immigrants would automatically be denied the right to apply for asylum, on the grounds that their countries are safe. This list would include countries such as Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania and Nigeria, as well as the EEA, Latin America, and all countries tha tare judged safe, with the criteria for "safety" being "freedom from repression, famine, and war". Citizens of countries meeting this criteria should be denied the right to claim asylum. If that violates the UN Refugee Convention, then it should be renegotiated. If the other countries refuse to renegotiate it, then Ireland should withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention. It is a Cold War document, written for an age when NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries were looking for a formalised mechanism for regularising defections to each other.

like auswitz so...

No not bloody like Auschwitz! I am talking about detaining them in humane conditions, not starving them, shooting them, burning them, forcing them into slave labour, or torturing them! Labelling people again you are.

billy the squid

No not bloody like Auschwitz! I am talking about detaining them in humane conditions, not starving them, shooting them, burning them, forcing them into slave labour, or torturing them! Labelling people again you are.

guantanimo bay then?

what you propose is a concentration camp plain and simple. what else could it be?

GuanYin

Ok I'm fed up with this.

Arcade, I know you said you believe the last time.

But provide evidence that Ireland as a whole is against this as you said or with draw.

You have no right or position to speak for the irsh people or propose your biggoted opinons as that of a nation.

Provide hard core facts or withdraw.
Mods, I urge you to support this.

I don't believe this forum showuld be a platform for such false proclamations.

MadsL

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Illegal immigrants have committed a crime and a crime should not be rewarded.

How many Irish illegal immigrants should we now expect to be deported from the US then? The entire 100,000 Irish that have gone over in the last seven
years on tourist visas and stayed after the time was up? Where should they serve their prison sentence? In the US or here?

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

So out of 60,000 asylum seekers, 59,000 are not recognised as refugees. And out of that how many have been deported or were voluntarily repatriated? 4,302! That is NOT most of the illegal immigrants!

Pulled from you ar*e. Again.

From your own source Asylum-Seeker and Refugee Statistics for Ireland in 2004

Persons who apply for asylum in Ireland are entitled to have their case heard at the ‘first instance’ by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and if unsuccesful, at appeal by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT)

Cumulative statistics:

Since the implementation of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) in November 2000, the ORAC has processed a total of 43,114 asylum applications at first instance while the RAT has processed to completion 24,127 cases, up to the end of 2004. (All cases processed at appeal are included in both sets of figures above.)

The overall total of asylum applicants recognised as refugees from 2000 up to 2004 is 5,845* (2,337 at first instance and 3,508 at appeals).

By my reckoning thats roughly 13% of applications were successful from 2000-2004. Do the maths.

*1,533 individuals were recognised as refugees between 1996 and 2000 before the ORAC and RAT were set up, bringing the overall total to 7,285

I don't have figures for 1996-1999, but I'm sure a thoroughly prepared researcher like yourself can provide said figures. Either way your original figures (like everything else you bring to the discussion) are way off.

Leave to remain:

Persons who have been definitively refused refugee status are entitled to apply to the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for ‘leave to remain’. In deciding whether to grant permission to remain in Ireland, the Minister for Justice is obliged to consider 11 grounds as set out in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, which include the age of the applicant, duration of residence in State, character and conduct of applicant both within and humanitarian considerations amongst others. In 2004, only 75 individuals were granted leave to remain on humanitarian grounds, bringing the total since 1999 to 442.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

In not one single year have a significant number of bogus asylum claimants been deported.

Deportations:

A total of 599 deportations were carried out in 2004 from 2,866 deportation orders signed by the Minister of Justice.
<snip>
Since 1999, a total of 2,268 deportations have been carried out.

Another 611 left the state voluntarily, bringing the total that have left the state (and informed the authorities) to 2,520 since 1999.

230 Dublin II transfer orders were signed and 65 were carried out. Under the Dublin II Regulation, Ireland may request another state to accept responsibility for an asylum application and have it processed in that state, if the applicant had previously applied for asylum in that member state or was granted a visa or work permit in member state. Similarly, Ireland receives requests from other states for the transfer of asylum applicants here.

Now I don't know the ins and outs of immigration legislation, but I'd have imagined that:

1. A deportation order is required for the deportation of a non-national
2. Failure to carry out a deportation on receipt of such an order indicates a failing on the part of the immigration authorities/Gardai

Easy enough to resolve.

pete

arcadegame2004 wrote:

blah blah We need a Irish or EU list of safe-countries, from which immigrants would automatically be denied the right to apply for asylum, on the grounds that their countries are safe. This list would include countries such as Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania and Nigeria, as well as the EEA, Latin America, and all countries tha tare judged safe, with the criteria for "safety" being "freedom from repression, famine, and war".

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+refugee

http://hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=ukrain

This Sunday’s inauguration of Viktor Yushchenko as president marks an important opportunity to break with past shortcomings in respect for human rights in Ukraine, Human Rights Watch said today in an open letter to the president-elect.

http://hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=romani

Today in Romania, gays and lesbians are routinely denied some of the most basic human rights guaranteed by international law. Despite amendments in 1996 to the criminal code provisions relating to homosexual conduct, gays and lesbians continue to be arrested and convicted for such relations if they become public knowledge.

http://hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=bulgar

Children in Bulgaria are often deprived of their basic rights by police, the very people who are supposed to protect them. After conducting a fact-finding mission to Bulgaria in the spring of 1996, Human Rights Watch concludes that street children are often subjected to physical abuse and other mistreatment by police, both on the street and in police lockups, and by skinhead gangs, who brutally attack the children because of their Roma (Gypsy) ethnic identity. Once detained by police, children fall victim to gross procedural inadequacies in the juvenile justice system in Bulgaria.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=nigeri

This 111-page report documents human rights violations since Shari’a was introduced to cover criminal law in 12 northern states. Since 2000, at least 10 people have been sentenced to death and dozens sentenced to amputation and floggings. The majority have been tried without legal representation. Many sentenced to amputation were convicted on confessions extracted under torture by the police. Judges in Shari’a courts, most of whom have not received adequate training, have failed to inform defendants of their rights.

Yeah they sure sound 100% safe to me.

therecklessone

MadsL wrote:

How many Irish illegal immigrants should we now expect to be deported from the US then? The entire 100,000 Irish that have gone over in the last seven
years on tourist visas and stayed after the time was up? Where should they serve their prison sentence? In the US or here?

I've been trying to get an answer to that off him for ages now... :rolleyes:

As far as I am concerned, you are not a genuine refugee for the purposes of the asylum and immigration system, unless you claim asylum in the first EU state you enter, and/or are fleeing war, famine or persecution.

Given that Irish immigrants to the US were fleeing neither war, famine nor persecution post-War of Independance, can I take it you support my contention that every illegal Irish immigrant in the US today should be deported forthwith? I suggest we place them in detention centres (humane of course) until we can find seats on eastbound transatlantic flights. We'll need to shackle them while they are in transit to/from the detention centre, for their safety as much as for the safety of legal citizens of the US. The filthy criminals that they are...

MadsL

MadsL wrote:

How many Irish illegal immigrants should we now expect to be deported from the US then? The entire 100,000 Irish that have gone over in the last seven
years on tourist visas and stayed after the time was up? Where should they serve their prison sentence? In the US or here?

To answer my own question, and following Arcade's recommendations regarding the AQ 'threat'; it is best that all illegal Irish in the US be rounded up and interred in dentention camps until they either leave or are recognised as genuine refugees. After all it is well known that Irish nationals have been operating as terrorist cells, raising money for terrorist organisations and most recently plotting dasterdly deeds in Columbia. One can't be too careful - after all they may launch a terrorist strike against the US. Any illegal Brits should also be rounded up in case they attempt to overthrow the Government as they have tried this before.

therecklessone

pete wrote:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+refugee

http://hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=ukrain

http://hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=romani

http://hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=bulgar

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=nigeri

Yeah they sure sound 100% safe to me.

The delicious irony of Pete providing all those URLs from Human Rights Watch to aman who has a link to HRW in his sig is not lost on this board...

billy the squid

OK i'll bite seeing as arcadegame2004 seems to think that these assylum seekers are safe in their own countries. even though it is not the topic of this thread but he's the one that brought it up so here goes

lets have a look at the top ten countries on the Irish Refugee counsils website

Somalia – 82

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-07-voa26.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm

Iraq – 34

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Do you still think iraq is safe?

Sudan – 34

http://allafrica.com/stories/200502070758.html

China – 23

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=china

Iran – 20

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/06/opinion/edhunt.html
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran

Zimbabwe – 18

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=zimbab

Nigeria – 18

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=nigeri

Afghanistan – 16

http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=47666

They are still fighting in afghanistan you know, just because you dont see it on the news and all

Ukraine – 14

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1341141,00.html

fiddling elections in Ukraine

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-14-ukraine_x.htm

where the only way to win an election is to poison the opposition leader.

Russia – 14

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/russia/chechnya/
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp020505.shtml

not the safest country either.

now what was that you were saying about these assylum seekers not being safe in their own countries?

chewy

aha just remembered taht even US nationals are offically seeking asylum in Canada to avoid being sent back to Iraq, so you can even be a asylum seeker from the "safest" country in the world!!!

arcadegame2004

billy the squid wrote:

OK i'll bite seeing as arcadegame2004 seems to think that these assylum seekers are safe in their own countries. even though it is not the topic of this thread but he's the one that brought it up so here goes

lets have a look at the top ten countries on the Irish Refugee counsils website



http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-07-voa26.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm



http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Do you still think iraq is safe?



http://allafrica.com/stories/200502070758.html



http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=china



http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/06/opinion/edhunt.html
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran



http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=zimbab



http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=nigeri



http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=47666

They are still fighting in afghanistan you know, just because you dont see it on the news and all



http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1341141,00.html

fiddling elections in Ukraine

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-14-ukraine_x.htm

where the only way to win an election is to poison the opposition leader.



http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/russia/chechnya/
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/pp020505.shtml

not the safest country either.

now what was that you were saying about these assylum seekers not being safe in their own countries?

Okay, but is anyone here seriously suggesting that Ireland is the first EU state any of these asylum-seekers enter? If not then they are not our problem, but the responsibility of the first EU state they entered, under the Dublin II Convention. Regarding Ukraine, it is now a democracy. Regarding all the other countries mentioned, it strains credulity to argue that Ireland is the first EU state they entered upon leaving their country. Regarding Nigeria, Sharia law only applies in the northern states. To escape Sharia, they need only travel to the Christian south of the country, or a neighbouring country.

There are many tragic cases of human rights abuses around the world. But it is simply not on to say that Ireland should stand out, with Spain, among European nations as the only ones granting carte-blanche amnesty to asylum-seekers. The person who started this thread asked should we grant the same to asylum-seekers in Ireland. However, asylum-seekers here are not allowed to work, so I felt (perhaps mistakenly) that the starter of this thread and others were calling for carte-blanche amnesty for all asylum-seekers, as is Labour party policy (or was in the 2002 election and look what good it did them). We need to implement the goal of EU treaties which called for a common EU Immigration and Asylum Policy, so that the asylum and immigration system is used for genuine refugees, rather than as a system enabling people to root around for the most generous system, by traversing the continent.

Billy the Squid, what evidence have you that the majority of asylum-seekers from these countries in Ireland fall into the category of those who were made victims from the human-rights abuses you refer to? The fact that Sharia law applies in Northern Nigeria makes us none the wiser about whether or not Nigerian asylum seekers in Ireland come from the North. if they don't then the Sharia issue is irrelevant.

In any case, Ireland is too small to allow itself to become the primary destination of the world's wronged. We only have 4 million people (of which hundreds of thousands aren't even of Irish parentage or origin) and many feel that we have taken in enough. Britain, - a country of 60 million people - is far better placed to take in the migrants converging on Europe's shores every year. We have only had our independent state for 70 years and we want to keep it, not turn it into a province of Nigeria. Partition has its routes in mass-migration remember. If our hospitals are being overburdened now, how can they possibly cope if we introduce the pull-factor of mass amnesty? Mass amnesty would mark Ireland out as a soft touch. How much proof do you need of that?

Oh and whoever said I am talking about "Concentration camps" is departing the realms of factual argument, and entering the realms of hysteria in my opinion. Can we please keep this debate civil, and avoid personal insults. There is a HELL of a lot of difference between wanting a tougher immigration policy on the one hand, and wanting to exterminate people on the other!

MadsL

Perhaps you should actually read the Dublin2 Convention...!!!!!

http://www.refugeelawreader.org/files/pdf/549.pdf

A few quotes;

Article 7
Where the asylum seeker has a family member, regardless of
whether the family was previously formed in the country of
origin, who has been allowed to reside as a refugee in a
Member State, that Member State shall be responsible for examining
the application for asylum, provided that the persons
concerned so desire.

Article 8
If the asylum seeker has a family member in a Member State
whose application has not yet been the subject of a first decision
regarding the substance, that Member State shall be
responsible for examining the application for asylum, provided
that the persons concerned so desire.

Where the asylumseeker is in possession of a valid visa,
the Member State which issued the visa shall be responsible for
examining the application for asylum, unless the visa was
issued when acting for or on the written authorisation of
another Member State. In such a case, the latter Member State
shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum.

Article 10
Where it is established, on the basis of proof or circumstantial
evidence as described in the two lists mentioned in
Article 18(3), including the data referred to in Chapter III of
Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000, that an asylumseeker has irregularly
crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or
air having come from a third country, the Member State thus
entered shall be responsible for examining the application for
asylum. This responsibility shall cease 12 months after the date
on which the irregular border crossing took place.

whoever said I am talking about "Concentration camps" is departing the realms of factual argument, and entering the realms of hysteria in my opinion.

You would know all about hysteria I guess. By the way, did I get you views on illegal irish immigrants correct?

Zombrex

arcadegame2004 wrote:

There are many tragic cases of human rights abuses around the world. But it is simply not on to say that Ireland should stand out, with Spain, among European nations as the only ones granting carte-blanche amnesty to asylum-seekers.

Why not? It will save us money, which I though was the entire rational behind your arguments against asylum seekers

arcadegame2004 wrote:

So that the asylum and immigration system is used for genuine refugees, rather than as a system enabling people to root around for the most generous system, by traversing the continent.

And by your logic anyone applying for asylum in Ireland is atomatically denied asylum because they are applying in Ireland. I am sure the rest of europe would just love that policy :rolleyes:

arcadegame2004 wrote:

In any case, Ireland is too small to allow itself to become the primary destination of the world's wronged. We only have 4 million people (of which hundreds of thousands aren't even of Irish parentage or origin) and many feel that we have taken in enough. Britain, - a country of 60 million people - is far better placed to take in the migrants converging on Europe's shores every year. We have only had our independent state for 70 years and we want to keep it, not turn it into a province of Nigeria.

Such bulls**t it is hard to keep up (your previous post contained a whole load of wrong statistics from a page YOU linked too! I will post the correct statistics tomorrow if I could be bothered. You have been shown the correct statistics before and you just ignored them)

Firstly Ireland takes less that 1 percent of the total number of refugees in the world. We take less than the Czech Republic and Slovakia FFS.

Secondly Ireland has one of the lowest unemployment levels in the world and one of the fastest growing economys. Not that this matters much because refugees can't work!!

Thirdly you just show yourself up for being the racist bigot everyone on this thread thinks you are when you come up with such ridiculous scaremongering statements such as your last line.

billy the squid

Billy the Squid, what evidence have you that the majority of asylum-seekers from these countries in Ireland fall into the category of those who were made victims from the human-rights abuses you refer to? The fact that Sharia law applies in Northern Nigeria makes us none the wiser about whether or not Nigerian asylum seekers in Ireland come from the North. if they don't then the Sharia issue is irrelevant.

the fact that they are here and not there is proof enough for me. If they were happy in their own country and felt safe in their own country then why did they leave and request assylum.

assylum seekers cannot work remember.

In any case, Ireland is too small to allow itself to become the primary destination of the world's wronged. We only have 4 million people (of which hundreds of thousands aren't even of Irish parentage or origin)

wait a minute. the figures from each country dont even break into tripple digits. where are yo ugetting the 100s of thousands figure from.

as well as that have you not considered the fact that there are wives and husbands of irish people who have not been born here. what percentage of this magical figure of hundreds of thousands do those people make up.

billy the squid

Oh and whoever said I am talking about "Concentration camps" is departing the realms of factual argument, and entering the realms of hysteria in my opinion. Can we please keep this debate civil, and avoid personal insults. There is a HELL of a lot of difference between wanting a tougher immigration policy on the one hand, and wanting to exterminate people on the other!

oh really?

concentration camp
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Page 1 of 1

Print PagePrint ArticleE-mail ArticleCite Article

internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals

sceptre

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Okay, but is anyone here seriously suggesting that Ireland is the first EU state any of these asylum-seekers enter? If not then they are not our problem, but the responsibility of the first EU state they entered, under the Dublin II Convention.

<not really mod mode>
Kindly refrain from talking about things you don't understand. I took time out a few months back to explain the Dublin II Regulations (it's Regulations, not Convention by the way) and you obviously forgot how to read that week as you still don't understand either its purpose or its scope. Put bluntly, you haven't a fricking clue of what you're on about now. It's tragic but you're talking through your arse. And everyone except you knows it.
</not really mod mode>

<really mod mode>
On the other hand, assuming you can actually read, you're attempting to mislead despite people having kindly explained the particular law to you repeatedly (more than once and pretty explicitly at that) and hence you're indulging in what we call a lie. I know for a fact that you've been warned on several occasions about this and the whole opinion as facts thing, very recently in fact so this is your final possible pre-ban warning. Do it again and I will ban you from the forum. I don't care what anyone's politics are and I don't care whether I agree with their views or not (in fact I've always been of the opinion that ideally anyone should be able to discuss their views here as long as they can present them) but I can't and won't have this turned into a playground for children. The older kids (especially the ones who can read facts and re-present them as what they actually are after having them explained) want their views heard too. Final warning, this is not a drill.

You may discuss this warning with me or with the other mods by PM or you may discuss it in the feedback forum, though the meaning and reason should be pretty plain. You may not discuss it in this thread. Feel free to discuss (by either of the offered methods) the bluntness of my message above. I'll happily discuss it in public. Obviously you can continue to discuss the Regulations in this thread, as it's relevant, though with my ordinary user hat on I'd suggest you read the opening paragraphs for knowledge about optional enforcability first.
</really mod mode>

dahamsta

<muted applause for sceptre>

gurramok

MadsL wrote:

How many Irish illegal immigrants should we now expect to be deported from the US then? The entire 100,000 Irish that have gone over in the last seven
years on tourist visas and stayed after the time was up? Where should they serve their prison sentence? In the US or here?

Them all as they abuse another countries system. Server their sentence there as they have real prisions hehe.
Its wishful thinking as it will never happen as there are close ties between this country and the US.