jugger0 wrote: » We didn't give them asylum seekers we gave them a workforce.
delthedriver wrote: » I would love to know if any Irish person has ever applied for asylum or a work permit in the countries from which our asylum seekers have come from. What kind of reception would the Irish National bee greeted with?:)
jugger0 wrote: » Indeed and we gave our host countries manpower for their workforce or cannon fodder for their wars, asylum seekers give us nothing and in these tough times would it not make more sense to look after our own?
vitani wrote: » Kevin Brophy, a solicitor, put up an interesting blog post recently:http://brophysolicitorsfamilylaw.blogspot.ie/2013/07/edward-snowden-welcome-to-ireland.html Personally, I think direct provision is an absolute disgrace and it shames us as a country. When you try to say this though, most people respond with one of the following:1) If they don't like it, go home. 2) There's brand new cars outside the centres. 3) They shouldn't be here in the first place. There's no direct flights from Africa to Ireland. 4) Our welfare system is too generous. All of which ignore the fact that these people are here and the conditions they have to live under are appalling. There's young children who've never known any other way of living, who don't even understand what a kitchen is. These kids are only going to get one childhood and it's being thrown away while the appeals are dragged out for years on end. Direct provision also costs us money as a State. It's inefficient and was never designed as a long-term solution. Unfortunately, that's what it's become.
delthedriver wrote: » If the asylum seekers cannot meet the acceptance standards within 12 months of applying they should be returned home. It is wrong to give them false hope by accommodating them for 10 years. I would love to know if any Irish person has ever applied for asylum or a work permit in the countries from which our asylum seekers have come from. What kind of reception would the Irish National bee greeted with?:)
Hilly Bill wrote: » They have, its called Ballbriggan.
AlekSmart wrote: » Vitani,can we assume,from the Kevin Brophy link,that you have an interest or involvement in this area ? Your 4 points,outlining what "Most People" respond with,may indeed be indicative of a simplistic response,but that does not invalidate them. Given that many of the Applicants for Asylum are supposedly in fleeing oppression and direct life threatening situations,I would be loath to describe the Irish State's Direct Provision response as anything other than humaniterian and proportionate to both the Country's ability to provide,and also the actual needs of the applicants. Whilst Kevin Brophy's opinion and that of the other 7 "Solicitors workin in the area of refugee law" are of course valid,their close involvement in the same system does tend to require a bit of filtering when considering those opinions. Other no less interested parties,not directly involved in the "Asylum" process may be entitled to hold a somewhat differing opinion ? Personally,I believe Irelands Direct Provision System,whilst far from perfect,is as good and wide-ranging a system as we can offer in our current financial and social situation. It most assuredly does not "Shame Ireland as a Country",and to suggest that is quite dispariging to those who administer and work within the DP systems The issues surrounding Asylum seeking,and it's worldwide "Industry" Status,brought to the fore in the Boom Times,did catch Ireland on the hop. We were simply unprepared for the reality that Ireland as a country,had become a "Mark" for those individuals and groups who operate 24/7/365 in the Asylum business. We could'nt get our administrative heads around a situation whereby,a chancer rocking-up to our door with a cock-and-bull story needed to be firmly but fairly turned 180 and sent on their way,complete with Dick Whittington pole and satchel. There were/are reasons,other than mere chance,that people from far flung countries managed to find themselves on Irelands doorstep. Very few of these reasons were down to the panic of having to suddenly flee the soldiers of an oppressive regime or a Political Opponent swinging a Panga outside your front-door. A significant number of the Asylum applicants,made and paid for "professional" advice in their home-countries,many of which,such as Nigeria,enjoy full diplomatic and social relations with Ireland. Dare I suggest that such "Professional Advice",most likely,came from foreign based interested parties,most likely akin to our own home based ones. I'm afraid Vitani,I differ in opinion on the issue,I believe Ireland is operating a fit-for-purpose system,adhering to the principles of Asylum as closely as it can,however as has been shown so many times,it simply buckled and collapsed under the weight of opportunistic systemic scamming.
vitani wrote: » No, we can't. I found that link one of the last times the topic came up here and it stuck in my memory. I've no personal involvement in the area. A former lecturer of mine is quite involved in the campaign to end direct provision so it's something I've read up on, but I've no 'interest' in it, as such. I'm just a bleeding heart leftie, I suppose. The issue, for me, is simply the way that asylum seekers are treated. I've no interest in discussing whether their claims are valid or whether they're scammers or opportunists, because I don't believe that makes their treatment acceptable. I believe there is a fairer way of assessing and administering claims for asylum, and accomodating asylum seekers while they wait for a decision, and that Direct Provision is not it.
Old and grey wrote: » Inane answer. I live in Balbriggan, its as good as anywhere else to live, not sure what kind of inane/stupid point you're trying to make. Then again since you cant even spell it properly its safe to assume that you have no idea what you're on about:P
Systemic Risk wrote: » . What are your thoughts on the treatment of assylum seekers in ireland? Should we ensure applications are assessed quickly with a decision taking no more than a year or two including any appeals? Should they just be happy we took them in at all and are providing for them?
vitani wrote: » I've no personal involvement in the area. A former lecturer of mine is quite involved in the campaign to end direct provision
vitani wrote: » The issue, for me, is simply the way that asylum seekers are treated. I've no interest in discussing whether their claims are valid or whether they're scammers or opportunists, because I don't believe that makes their treatment acceptable. I believe there is a fairer way of assessing and administering claims for asylum, and accomodating asylum seekers while they wait for a decision, and that Direct Provision is not it.
Cody Pomeray wrote: » I presume you're a UCD student?! Well exactly. This is a question of fairness. The surprising thing about direct provision is that for something which can so seriously aggravate asylum seekers' destitution, and offend their human dignity, it is not actually something defined by law. It is set down in Department of Social Protection circulars and deliberated on in internal memos... what way is that to deal with so fundamental a question as access to basic services and the ability to live with some level of human dignity? On the other hand, we have no problem passing laws to enforce automatic rejections of applications for rent supplement by asylum seekers. We go further. We do not sign up to the EU's Reception Conditions Directive, which would probably see us embarrassed in front of the European Court of Human Rights, that is if our own court system does not embarrass us further. And some would say, that with the amount of judicial reviews against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and new cases emerging all the time, that this is already happening. It is now only a matter of time before direct provision is subject to legal action.
My name is URL wrote: » "meet the acceptance standards" You haven't a clue what you're on about tbh. The fact that such delays exist isn't the fault of asylum seekers. It'd be a bit unfair to boot people out because of inadequacies in how the state goes about dealing with asylum claims. As for your second paragraph, what does that have to do with anything? If Irish people were treated badly in a country, should it be okay for us to treat others badly?
delthedriver wrote: » We are a country in recession. Why are we spending money trying to placate people who don't belong here?
Meanwhile long term cancer sufferers are having their medical cards withdrawn? Let us look after our own people first. Why are illegal aliens or asylum seeker so anxious to gain entry here in any case? Ireland has no history of having colonies. There are other EU countries for these people to seek asylum . It would be interesting to hear what SF views are on this?
AlekSmart wrote: » whilst some individuals may feel "Embarassment" at Irelands Asylum proceedures,I for one,feel nothing of the sort.
To sugggest that the Irish State,and by association,it's own Citizens,is conspiring to deny Asylum Seekers access to basic services or treating them with anything less than human dignity,is not sustainable. Is the suggestion that Ireland,in some way wishes to wage a campaign against Asylum provision..? Can those who deride Irelands attempts to cope with it's Asylum Seekers,provide any evidence that the State is mounting such a campaign ?
The fact that Ireland has a Refugee Appeals Tribunal at all,in addition to comprehensive access to it's highest Courts for those who seek it does not in the slightest point to something for any Irish Citizen to be ashamed of.
The suggestion that all current applicants will suddenly turn into fully employed contributors into mainstream Irish Society,is I fear,a little hopeful
My name is URL wrote: » Because international human rights laws dictates it?.. and also because it's the right thing to do. Ireland is no longer in a position where it can just shut up shop and pass the buck to other nations to deal with. Do you honestly think 'our own' would be treated any better if we turned away asylum seekers? SF, to the best of my knowledge are quite liberal in terms of immigration policies.
Friend Computer wrote: » Asylum from what, exactly?
Shenshen wrote: » Last time I checked, Ireland did have airports, several of them actually, with direct flights coming in from a variety of countries, not just Iceland, France and the UK. Why does everybody seem to imagine people looking for asylum come to Ireland on foot or swim across?
delthedriver wrote: » How much is it costing the Taxpayer per year, to house, feed , clothe, and give the asylum seekers modest spending money.? It is fine and well to be do gooders, however IMO, charity begins at home.
Perhaps someone could explain how asylum seekers can afford to run , tax and insure a car let alone purchase the thing on such a measly weekly allowance. Smell the coffee?
delthedriver wrote: » Another question if I may please? Has there been a noticeable drop in the numbers seeking asylum since Ireland went into recession?
NiallSparky wrote: » None of your family emigrated to the US/UK during the famine/economic troubles in the 70s then I presume?
Push Pop wrote: » I doubt they arrived looking for government assistance especially in the US!
Hammer Archer wrote: » As far as I can see, asylum seekers are treated fairly decently here, especially compared to other countries. They get guaranteed food, accommodation and just under €20 a week for the duration of their case(s) no matter how trivial their application is (in one case, someone had been working illegally for years yet only applied for asylum when they lost their job and couldn't pay their rent). Meanwhile, if you're an Irish or EU citizen and you fall on hard times, then tough luck.
Femme_Fatale wrote: » If they weren't genuine they'd **** off to somewhere else rather than hanging around for 10 years of getting less than €20 per week and living in cramped conditions.
Femme_Fatale wrote: » I know asylum-seekers are being accommodated by the state but there's no point in pretending €20 per week is generous (it would pay a few bus trips and nothing more; some of these people brought children with them) or that people who are citizens already are left to fend for themselves (as if there are no social welfare benefits). I read a report recently about how conditions in one of the centres in County Cork are pretty squalid and cramped. Now again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with conditions being basic, but should also be humane, - there's no excuse for absolute kips. As for why it takes so long: there must be a reason. No point in people who aren't familiar with the system saying it should take less time. 10 years does seem excessively long all right though.
