If nobody wants asylum seekers

Nevada

If nobody wants asylum seekers then therefore and ditto nobodys public representatives want asylum seekers either, as that would be a nonsence in a democracy.

Perhaps the next set of tribunals in our fair land should be addressing the level of bogus representation over the asylum racket and committing large numbers of our silent TD's, to slopping-out stretches in Mountjoy for misrepresentation and fraud and latterly theft.

Easily_Irritated

Nevada wrote:

If nobody wants asylum seekers then therefore and ditto nobodys public representatives want asylum seekers either, as that would be a nonsence in a democracy.

Perhaps the next set of tribunals in our fair land should be addressing the level of bogus representation over the asylum racket and committing large numbers of our silent TD's, to slopping-out stretches in Mountjoy for misrepresentation and fraud and latterly theft.

Hmmmmm, yaaaaaaa, that made perfect sense, there, Nevada!!! :rolleyes:

sceptre

Nevada wrote:

If nobody wants asylum seekers then therefore...

Your argument depends on proving your initial case. Your inference might well be fine (or might not) and hence the conclusion but you haven't given any basis for assuming the initial premise. In the absence of that it's not worth my while discussing the topic though I'll see if anyone else does.

If this is an attempt to discuss asylum, the asylum process, asylum seekers or owt to do with these, you might be beest just proposing your opinion in a rational way. The way you've started this, you need to prove your initial case before anyone with any copon would take the time to reply. Your ball, your court, use your racket.

To answer your proposal about the tribunal though, it isn't the duty of politicians, even in a representative democracy, to represent the precise views of their constituents on many or any particular matter. If you don't like the way your representative protects and advances your views, you're perfectly free to come together with your peers and vote them out of a job. Or run as a candidate yourself. In recent years that opportunity has arisen slightly more often than every five years. If they don't vote the way you think (or even know) all their constituents wish, you don't get to put them in the dock for it. You get to put them in the local dole office. Tribunals have been set up substantially only for large-scale illegal or possible illegal activities. Failing to represent the views of your constituents is not illegal. Should you choose to make it illegal, it's rather a larger issue than that of simple asylum. At that point, given that you would be having a vote on every single issue to make sure your representative knows how his/her vote should go, you could get rid of the representative aspect of representative democracy altogether, though obviously as that's a rather large decision it may well be an issue for a dedicated distinct thread on the issue.

Back up your premise. You've got nothing without it.

Hobbes

Based on his history of posts I would say it is probably just wishful thinking. He may be referring to that poll done some time ago, has been discussed already.

vibe666

not with 16 posts he's (she's?) not.

possibly a very cunning troll.

Frank Grimes

Out of interest. If Ireland decided tomorrow that we're not taking in any asylum seekers/refugees ever again, I guess we'd have "unsign" ourselves from the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees. What would the other implications? I also assume we'd have to remove ourselves from other international agreements etc. as a result?
I'm guessing it wouldn't be as simple as some people would imagine i.e. we can't just decide that this piece of international law doesn't appeal to us, but we'll take the rest.

bonkey

Oh we can generally decide to do such things alright, but they often don't make one too popular with the neighbours.

Boggle

If nobody wants asylum seekers then therefore and ditto nobodys public representatives want asylum seekers either, as that would be a nonsence in a democracy.

I might not WANT masses of asylum seekers but I would never object to granting refugee status to a genuine case. My only objection would be the shoddy manner in which the govt handles the matter.

Is it their "asylum seeker" status or their colour that truly bothers you??

axtradub12

We have to many already. Ireland is too small a country.

rsynnott

axtradub12 wrote:

We have to many already. Ireland is too small a country.

Ireland used to have a population of 8 million, with far more primitive food sources and accomodation than we have today. Ireland also exported many millions of our own refugees (largely economic).

TerrorFirmer

Only something like 3% of asylum seekers are recognised as genuine refugees. The problem is that they can leech off our system for the number of years it takes to make a decision.

I mean TBH - most of them want everything, claim this, claim that, entitled to this, etc. Man, ffs if I was "fleeing persecution" I'd be fcuking glad to sleep on the streets if it meant I was safe.

Biggest bunch of chancers on the planet, the massive majority of them :rolleyes:

rsynnott

I must say I'm not seeing the huge, horrendous problems being caused by refugees. And there are many benefits in terms of increased work-force and cultural diversity.

axtradub12

rsynnott wrote:

I must say I'm not seeing the huge, horrendous problems being caused by refugees. And there are many benefits in terms of increased work-force and cultural diversity.

I say bring our own Irish back home from Britain & elsewhere.

rsynnott

axtradub12 wrote:

I say bring our own Irish back home from Britain & elsewhere.

Ah, right, kicking and screaming, correct?

BuffyBot

Ireland used to have a population of 8 million, with far more primitive food sources

We also lived in sub-standard accomodation and had to deal with a host of other problems at the time. It's not really a comparible situation

therecklessone

MobileInfantry wrote:

Only something like 3% of asylum seekers are recognised as genuine refugees. The problem is that they can leech off our system for the number of years it takes to make a decision.

:rolleyes:

Why do I bother...

In 2004, a total of 1,132 individuals were recognised as refugees (430 at 'first instance' and 702 at the appeal stage). The recognition rate was 6% at first instance and 11% on appeal.

Source

I can't be bothered doing your research, so you can find out the preceeding years figures yourself.

Hobbes

BuffyBot wrote:

We also lived in sub-standard accomodation and had to deal with a host of other problems at the time. It's not really a comparible situation

Compare it to say South Korea similar size to Ireland and has a population of 48 million. Also makes Ireland look like an overpriced third world country.

shuushh

Your ball, your court, use your racket.

did you take this phrase from a self-help book or something ?

BuffyBot

Compare it to say South Korea similar size to Ireland and has a population of 48 million.

Apart from the size, there is a whole world of difference between South Korea and Ireland!

rsynnott

BuffyBot wrote:

Apart from the size, there is a whole world of difference between South Korea and Ireland!

So your worry about the whole thing is that the island can't sustain that many people, right? Well, that's silly. Another few Dublin-sized cities scattered around and you're done.

BuffyBot

Another few Dublin-sized cities scattered around and you're done.

Great, another few Dublins. What a well planned success the original is...another few will make it much better...

Macmorris

Nevada wrote:

If nobody wants asylum seekers then therefore and ditto nobodys public representatives want asylum seekers either, as that would be a nonsence in a democracy.

The Sunday Tribune carried out an IMS poll (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0501/poll.html) that found that 80% of Irish people wanted tougher restrictions on immigration, and yet I don't think there is a single elected politician who would even come close to representing their views.

It's not just with immigration though. I remember watching that newsnight programme where they had a poll analysing people's views on the EU. Around 39% of Irish people said they would either be glad or indifferent if the EU were to fall apart tomorrow. But as with immigration, eurosceptic views are unfairly represented in the Irish media and in politics.

We need better politicians in this country. The problem is that most politicians tend to be career-oriented rather conviction-oriented. In a choice between the interests of the people they represent, the interests of their party and their public image, the former seems to come last.

Perhaps the next set of tribunals in our fair land should be addressing the level of bogus representation over the asylum racket and committing large numbers of our silent TD's, to slopping-out stretches in Mountjoy for misrepresentation and fraud and latterly theft.

As the media seems so interested in getting the opinions of the public, maybe they should do a poll where they get the opinions of our elected representatives and see how they match up. That way we might be better able to hold them to account. It would be interesting to know how Irish politicians would respond when asked how they would feel at the prospect of Irish people becoming a minority in this country in the next fifty years.

Meh

Macmorris wrote:

The Sunday Tribune carried out an IMS poll (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0501/poll.html) that found that 80% of Irish people wanted tougher restrictions on immigration, and yet I don't think there is a single elected politician who would even come close to representing their views.

Incorrect, the poll found that 80% of the population wants restrictions on immigration, and I don't think there's a single elected politician who doesn't represent that view.

We need better politicians in this country.

Everyone always blames the politicians, nobody ever blames the people who vote for them every election.

It would be interesting to know how Irish politicians would respond when asked how they would feel at the prospect of Irish people becoming a minority in this country in the next fifty years.

It certainly would be interesting, I hope none of them would take such unrealistic scaremongering seriously.

frootfancy

How simple can immigration be?

Zimbabwe. Hostile, run by a despotic little troll hell bent on killing anyone who doesn't say his anus produces gold. natural reaction to asylum seekers? Deport them.

Iraq- A free, new independant nation who needs its population to rebuild the peaceful, democratic future promised by the West. keep their asylum seekers here with no power to send them back.

We've gotten so bogged down in figures and opinion we've lost sight of what asylum stood for. Zimbabweans have a genuine need to come to the UK (Heath Streak and Andy Flower being the most high profile) Mugabe is torturing, killing, bulldozing and wearing cream trousers with dark blazers. Iraqis now have a free country in which to revel their lives. We've begun deporting Kosovans so why are we still accepting Iraqis?

I could narrow the application process to one question;

Are you in danger where you come from?

Yes / No

If the answer's No, then its big silver bird time.

rsynnott

frootfancy wrote:

Iraq- A free, new independant nation who needs its population to rebuild the peaceful, democratic future promised by the West. keep their asylum seekers here with no power to send them back.

Unless they happen to be a woman, in which case they're pretty much ****ed if they're expecting to go back and lead the same sort of life they used to lead.

frootfancy

Well we keep hearing about the new and free Iraq. Its time Iraqis everywhere should enjoy the opportunity we bestowed upon them. You have to look at the terms of asylum. Iraqi Kurds came to the UK because of persecution from Saddam. He's not going to be doing that anymore hence there is no need to stop in the UK.

rsynnott

frootfancy wrote:

Well we keep hearing about the new and free Iraq. Its time Iraqis everywhere should enjoy the opportunity we bestowed upon them. You have to look at the terms of asylum. Iraqi Kurds came to the UK because of persecution from Saddam. He's not going to be doing that anymore hence there is no need to stop in the UK.

You're making the amazing leap of logic that because someone on the tv vaguely says that Iraq is "free", it is. Things have improved for some groups (male Kurds, fundamentalists, political opponents of Sadaam) and got worse for others (women). The thing is, by Middle East standards, Iraq was middle of the road. There is now a huge potential for it to turn into another Iran.

frootfancy

"You're making the amazing leap of logic that because someone on the tv vaguely says that Iraq is "free", it is"

Its part of the contribution. However as most Iraqis here are Kurds who fled Saddam, now he is removed surely their reason for asylum is gone too? I know its not quite that staight forward but its the only logical way to work the system. If you start tweaking things here and there, adding a ticky box for a certain group then you create the nightmare we have today.

People fled the former Yugoslavia because of persecution from Milosevic and the Serbs. Milosevic was removed, Croats/ Bosnians/ Croat Serbs/ Kosovans and various others were shipped out. You can't keep creating different tiers for different countries.

We keep being told the diplomatic Iraq is imminent so there surely can be no reason for Iraqis to be still claiming asylum.

rsynnott

frootfancy wrote:

We keep being told the diplomatic Iraq is imminent so there surely can be no reason for Iraqis to be still claiming asylum.

You keep being told that by a government that participated in a messy war, that wants to make the best of it that it can. Look a bit closer though, and Iraq becomes less of a democratic wonderland.

KnowItAll

MobileInfantry wrote:

Only something like 3% of asylum seekers are recognised as genuine refugees. The problem is that they can leech off our system for the number of years it takes to make a decision.

I mean TBH - most of them want everything, claim this, claim that, entitled to this, etc. Man, ffs if I was "fleeing persecution" I'd be fcuking glad to sleep on the streets if it meant I was safe.

Biggest bunch of chancers on the planet, the massive majority of them :rolleyes:

Couldn't agree more.

A friend of mine works in social welfare and has to give out checks to asylum seekers. He told me that the Nigerians in particular are a real pain. They complain that they are not getting enough and they usually go for luxury items like expensive buggies. The cheap buggies (they cost hundreds btw) are not good enough.

It makes you wonder. They come here seeking asylum but still want everything going and are only satisfied with luxury items.

frootfancy

"You keep being told that by a government that participated in a messy war, that wants to make the best of it that it can. Look a bit closer though, and Iraq becomes less of a democratic wonderland."


Much like the former Yugoslavia. I am aware Iraq is made up of effectively several different cultures that all want their own way. Just like the Balkans. However ideal or not, we deported them when the war ended and in that premise there's no reason not to deport Iraqis. Don't worry about me believing what the coalition claim Iraq now is. All i'm saying is there's no need for further Iraqis to be let in and its time to start thinking about sending the ones here back. Kurds claimed oppression from Saddam to get into the country. That reason has now gone and a people appointed leader put in place.

If the continued terror attacks in Iraq are a reason to leave, why wasn't Scotland flooded with Northern Irish asylum seekers? Or how about Portugal being over-run with Spanish/ French people fleeing Eta?

KnowItAll

Hobbes wrote:

Compare it to say South Korea similar size to Ireland and has a population of 48 million. Also makes Ireland look like an overpriced third world country.

Dunno about you but I like a little bit of space..

Hobbes

KnowItAll wrote:

Dunno about you but I like a little bit of space..

You obviously haven't been to South Korea.

Seoul would be like New York, and certainly a few cities around it have similar populations to Ireland however there are large areas quite open and countryside. On-Yang for example looks a lot like Clare (only without the tourists, and less houses).

Hobbes

KnowItAll wrote:

A friend of mine works in social welfare and has to give out checks to asylum seekers. He told me that the Nigerians in particular are a real pain. They complain that they are not getting enough and they usually go for luxury items like expensive buggies. The cheap buggies (they cost hundreds btw) are not good enough.

They get 19.10 euros a week and are not allowed take up paid work. Are you saying this is too much to give them? Are you saying that they shouldn't be complaining because it is too much money? Could you live on 19.10 euros a week?

You have some proof to back up that expensive buggies line. Last time I looked a buggy is around 100+ euros. You have children? If so you should know.

shoegirl

frootfancy wrote:

How simple can immigration be?

Zimbabwe. Hostile, run by a despotic little troll hell bent on killing anyone who doesn't say his anus produces gold. natural reaction to asylum seekers? Deport them.

Iraq- A free, new independant nation who needs its population to rebuild the peaceful, democratic future promised by the West. keep their asylum seekers here with no power to send them back.

We've gotten so bogged down in figures and opinion we've lost sight of what asylum stood for. Zimbabweans have a genuine need to come to the UK (Heath Streak and Andy Flower being the most high profile) Mugabe is torturing, killing, bulldozing and wearing cream trousers with dark blazers. Iraqis now have a free country in which to revel their lives. We've begun deporting Kosovans so why are we still accepting Iraqis?

I could narrow the application process to one question;

Are you in danger where you come from?

Yes / No

If the answer's No, then its big silver bird time.

Very succinct post which does get to the point of the problem.

But there is one more problem - which is that under the terms of the 1951 convention, even a person fleeing a country because of a war may not strictly qualify for refugee status. In most countries in Europe "leave to remain" is the normal response, however Ireland has done something much more insidious. We've more or less ignored the leave to remain requirement and instead granted a much higher than normal number asylum - which gives the illusion that Ireland is fulfilling its obligations and being "generous" when in fact Ireland is only fulfilling its UN directed obligations.

As a result the actual number of asylum seekers actually getting full rights to stay is one of the smallest in Europe. Curiously enough, the US has one of the best records in terms of admissions - and good naturalisation processes.

What I don't understand is why there is still 1000 plus people a month coming to Ireland when their changes of a succesful application is only 6%.
The nastiest thing of all is that public opinion is being manipulated when the 10-30% who normally would get "leave to remain" on humanitarian grounds are turned down they are then automatically branded "bogus" asylum seekers.

The reality is that you can have a very genuine case for seeking refugee status that will not 100% fit the terms of 1951 and get turned down, even though you may be in danger for your life back home.

Classic example is the cases of threatened female genital mutilation in remote Nigeria. Technically these do not fulfill the terms of the 1951 covention and so Ireland is technically correct in rejecting asylum claims. However in a civillised society that respects the humanitarian rights of women and children, they would be granted leave to remain.

But in Ireland they are not - and then deported back to Nigeria to face these dangers.

The fact that they are not is sadly indicative of an Irish society's contempt for the applicants on the grounds of ethnicity, gender and powerlessness. It is a terrible reflection of the society that Ireland has become. In numerous abortion referenda Ireland has tried to show the world how modern and "compassionate" she has become, but in the asylum system she has revealed her true contempt for women and their children, born and unborn.

pete

KnowItAll wrote:

A friend of mine works in social welfare and has to give out checks to asylum seekers.

Really? Because asylum seekers can't claim social welfare, and afaik DSCFA haven't "given out checks" (sic) since payments were transferred to An Post a number of years ago, and prior to that social welfare payments were made in cash.

Could it be your friend is a community welfare officer? If so, maybe you could ask him / her how much of his cheque writing is discretionary and how much is simply what people are entitled to, regardless of their perceived attitude?

bonkey

frootfancy wrote:

How simple can immigration be?

We've gotten so bogged down in figures and opinion we've lost sight of what asylum stood for.

Looks to me like we've gotten so bogged down in being scared of the large numbers of foreigners out there that we've lost sight of the fact that immigrants and asylum seekers have little other than their non-Irishness in common.

Whether it was a slip of the tongue/fingers or not, if you can't make your argument regarding one without accidentally confusing them with the other, it has to be said that you are more likely to be part of the problem rather than of the solution.

jc

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

A friend of mine works in social welfare and has to give out checks to asylum seekers. He told me that the Nigerians in particular are a real pain. They complain that they are not getting enough and they usually go for luxury items like expensive buggies. The cheap buggies (they cost hundreds btw) are not good enough.

It makes you wonder. They come here seeking asylum but still want everything going and are only satisfied with luxury items.

Bangs .. head ... against ... wall ....

Asylum seekers entering this country get nothing except their rent and food (food they are given, they can't buy their own)... nothing ... not cars, not buggies, not hair cuts, not "entertainment" money, nothing ... they get put in hostels (they don't get county council houses)

Your friend is either very miss informed or lying.

frootfancy

Asylum/ immigration matters in England are lumped together and dealt with as one. Its under one department so tends to be mentioned in the same breath.

"Asylum seekers entering this country get nothing except their rent and food (food they are given, they can't buy their own)... nothing ... not cars, not buggies, not hair cuts, not "entertainment" money, nothing ... they get put in hostels (they don't get county council houses"

Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things...

therecklessone

frootfancy wrote:

Asylum/ immigration matters in England are lumped together and dealt with as one. Its under one department so tends to be mentioned in the same breath.

You obviously missed the .ie in the site address then...

frootfancy wrote:

Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things...

Explain by hook or by crook.

Zombrex

frootfancy wrote:

Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things...

And you know this how...?

frootfancy

By illegal methods. Theft, deception etc etc.

I know these things because dealing with immigrants/ asylum seekers is now very much an every day part of my job

therecklessone

frootfancy wrote:

I know these things because dealing with immigrants/ asylum seekers is now very much an every day part of my job

In England, yes? Cos we've already pointed out the fact that asylum seeker and immigrant aren't always the same thing.

frootfancy

Yes and so?

bonkey

frootfancy wrote:

Asylum/ immigration matters in England are lumped together and dealt with as one. Its under one department so tends to be mentioned in the same breath.

Hang on a sec....

Are you saying that you're not talking about asylum and immigration in Ireland then, but rather the situation in England?

Or are you just talking about Ireland but using terminology that doesn't apply to the situation in Ireland?

The latter would strike me as being either deliberately disingenuous or merely self-defeating.

If you want people to take your arguments seriously, the first thing you need to show is that they are credble. Referring to immigrants and asylum seekers in this mish-mash-lets-not-bother-distinguishing manner, whilst discussing the situation in Ireland where there most certainly is and should be a distinction is simply not credible.

But don't let me stop you. Credible arguments are more difficult to dismiss.

jc

therecklessone

frootfancy wrote:

Yes and so?

Because your posting on an Irish board, discussing asylum issues in an Irish context, confusing the terms immigration and asylum seeker (regardless of whether the Daily Mail approach is to interchange the terms or not) and posting of your experiences in the UK without specifying the context of such experiences, hence giving the impression that you are discussing the situation in this country.

You know what about asylum issues in the Republic?

frootfancy

I'm talking about immigration here. I was unaware i HAD to live in Ireland to post here. I'm pretty certain that as Irish citizens you go through the same processes and concerns as we do in England. Or is it custom to worry about your own little world whilst not considering what happens just across the water? The fact next to my user name it say i'm in England perhaps might be a clue to the fact i'm talking about the situation here.

I'm offering my opinions as a serving police officer in England and my experiences with asylum seekers and immigrants.

As for differentiation between the two, looking up the terms immigrant and aslyum seeker brings back the same definition. Whatever the terminology i'm talking about, at least here, it means exactly the same.

pete

frootfancy wrote:

I'm offering my opinions as a serving police officer in England and my experiences with asylum seekers and immigrants.

As for differentiation between the two, looking up the terms immigrant and aslyum seeker brings back the same definition. Whatever the terminology i'm talking about, at least here, it means exactly the same.

Good grief.

Possibly 3 of the most depressing sentences i've ever read here.

frootfancy

cheers buddy :eek:

Hobbes

frootfancy wrote:

Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things...

I hear magical pixies come from behind the curtains and under the beds and leave the stuff for them when they wake up.. Any bets who can find evidence to prove their point first?

Hobbes

As for differentiation between the two, looking up the terms immigrant and aslyum seeker brings back the same definition. Whatever the terminology i'm talking about, at least here, it means exactly the same.

I have to ask, where are you looking the definations up?

immigrant, Asylum Seeker.

They are not even remotely the same. They are also not used in the same context here except by certain people trying to point out they should all leave the country.

I'm offering my opinions as a serving police officer in England and my experiences with asylum seekers and immigrants.

I find that very hard to believe.