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

alastair wrote: »

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.

As they should be. We are an island country at the furthest periphery of Europe with virtually no ties to the countries these people are coming from. There is a fair argument for pro-rata distribution but thats not at hand.

alastair wrote: »

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.

I am not sure what you mean. What is not attractive about the Irish system to a genuine refugee apart from the backlogs inflicted by bogus claims?

reprise wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean. What is not attractive about the Irish system to a genuine refugee apart from the backlogs inflicted by bogus claims?

The issues raised by the applicants currently in the direct provision system are pretty compelling tbh. I wouldn't want to have to live within those constraints and limitations, and I certainly wouldn't consider it an 'attractive' option.

alastair wrote: »

The issues raised by the applicants currently in the direct provision system are pretty compelling tbh. I wouldn't want to have to live within those constraints and limitations, and I certainly wouldn't consider it an 'attractive' option.

I am flabbergasted.

I think you would drop dead within five minutes of arriving in a typical country producing refugees.

Heres what real refugees deal with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LExcoR_2rE

I'd give you two minutes here.

reprise wrote: »

I am flabbergasted.

I think you would drop dead within five minutes of arriving in a typical country producing refugees.

Heres what real refugees deal with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LExcoR_2rE

I'd give you two minutes here.

Has the flabbergasted state knocked any common sense out of you? I don't think you get what the distinctions between the expectations of a failed third world country and an affluent western nation are, with regard to refugee supports.

alastair wrote: »

Has the flabbergasted state knocked any common sense out of you? I don't think you get what the distinctions between the expectations of a failed third world country and an affluent western nation are, with regard to refugee supports.

If my house burns down and I turn up penniless at the Hilton, I better get a damn fine room?

Whose expectations? the refugees? Is sanctuary, safety, food, shelter, medicine, money, allowances etc etc not enough?

I am stunned.

PS. Nodin. Why not join in. You will have that "thanks" button broken.

reprise wrote: »

If my house burns down and I turn up penniless at the Hilton, I better get a damn fine room?

Whose expectations? the refugees? Is sanctuary, safety, food, shelter, medicine, money, allowances etc etc not enough?

I am stunned.

PS. Nodin. Why not join in. You will have that "thanks" button broken.

You do realise that there's a pretty broad range of options between a tent in a war-torn failed state, and a snazzy suite in the Hilton?

alastair wrote: »

You do realise that there's a pretty broad range of options between a tent in a war-torn failed state, and a snazzy suite in the Hilton?

Yes, I think I even mentioned a few that are on offer in this country:

sanctuary, safety, food, shelter, medicine, money, allowances etc etc

When I think of real suffering in the world, it actually makes me a little ill that you think that this is not enough.

reprise wrote: »

When I think of real suffering in the world, it actually makes me a little ill that you think that this is not enough.

Most people's expectation would be that we can do a bit better than 'suffering' of any sort, when we're responsible for people's welfare.

alastair wrote: »

Most people's expectation would be that we can do a bit better than 'suffering' of any sort, when we're responsible for people's welfare.

You don't know the meaning of the word.

alastair wrote: »

Has the flabbergasted state knocked any common sense out of you? I don't think you get what the distinctions between the expectations of a failed third world country and an affluent western nation are, with regard to refugee supports.

Well and good,but flabbergasting aside,those distinctions should not be required in this debate.

Our level of Refugee support is nothing to be ashamed of,and would be improved for sure,if it were possible to remove the numbers of overstayers whose refusal to accept their failed situation only lessens the chances of those genuinely in need of succor.

Whether simply being a citizen of a "Failed Third World Country" is satisfactory in itself to gain Asylum in Ireland,is as much part of the debate as anything else.

Whether our "affluence" is of the required level to allow us to embrace the Citizens of those Failed Third World Countries,in the numbers required by some posters,is equally debatable.

I'll suggest again,Ireland has nothing to be ashamed of,in it's history of offering a Safe-Harbour to refugees,but it has even less to be ashamed of if it sees-off the opportunists seeking to abuse it's hospitality.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well and good,but flabbergasting aside,those distinctions should not be required in this debate.

It really shouldn't need saying that we ought to provide a more humane level of support to refugees than a war-torn failed state can.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Our level of Refugee support is nothing to be ashamed of.

Matter of debate. The government don't seem so comfortable that they're doing as good a job as they should. Some of the restrictions placed on those in direct provision are pretty shameful imo.

AlekSmart wrote: »

and would be improved for sure,if it were possible to remove the numbers of overstayers whose refusal to accept their failed situation only lessens the chances of those genuinely in need of succor.

How exactly is the number of over-stayers lessening the chance of those genuinely entitled to refugee status? They're certainly extending the processing of applicants, but "lessening their chances"?

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whether simply being a citizen of a "Failed Third World Country" is satisfactory in itself to gain Asylum in Ireland,is as much part of the debate as anything else.

Who claimed that?

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whether our "affluence" is of the required level to allow us to embrace the Citizens of those Failed Third World Countries,in the numbers required by some posters,is equally debatable.

I don't think there's much debate that we can afford to do better than Sudan can, tbh.

jank

One can always do 'more' but given the level of resources at hand and the number of over-stayers and the cycle of appeals clogging the system I do not think Ireland is doing too bad.

In another thread I mentioned that Dublin city council is considering using prefabs as a method to house homeless people on a temporary basis. Around 32% of people in direct provision are housed in this fashion yet it is deemed 'inhumane'. Why? If this is OK for homeless people, then surely its OK for people who come from third world countries. I asked previously for details on conditions in these places but none was forthcoming, just generalities.

The 'we can do more' is just a method to endlessly argue a point. Ireland could direct 15% of its taxbase to this problems, yet why not direct 16%, we can do more sure...

So the question should but what is deemed appropriate and how much will it cost?

alastair wrote: »

It really shouldn't need saying that we ought to provide a more humane level of support to refugees than a war-torn failed State can.

Huh? Which war torn state are you comparing hotels and Mosney to?

jank wrote: »

One can always do 'more' but given the level of resources at hand and the number of over-stayers and the cycle of appeals clogging the system I do not think Ireland is doing too bad.

In another thread I mentioned that Dublin city council is considering using prefabs as a method to house homeless people on a temporary basis. Around 32% of people in direct provision are housed in this fashion yet it is deemed 'inhumane'. Why? If this is OK for homeless people, then surely its OK for people who come from third world countries. I asked previously for details on conditions in these places but none was forthcoming, just generalities.

The 'we can do more' is just a method to endlessly argue a point. Ireland could direct 15% of its taxbase to this problems, yet why not direct 16%, we can do more sure...

So the question should but what is deemed appropriate and how much will it cost?

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

walshb

Ian has it spot on:

"What is the great lure of Ireland for asylum seekers who arrive on our shores? The same question could be asked of plenty of documented immigrants who have come here from far-away countries, of course. But the difference is that they have gone through the proper channels and proved, in theory at least, that they have a skill and can support themselves. That benefits both the new arrival and their new home; regulated immigration provides an infusion of new blood for any country and, when it works, everyone's a winner."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/its-time-we-closed-the-door-on-our-failed-asylum-policy-30592113.html

reprise wrote: »

Huh? Which war torn state are you comparing hotels and Mosney to?

Sorry - you've used up your troll credit.

walshb wrote: »

Ian has it spot on:

Except for repeating the same old canard of 'direct flights' and casually assuming that all asylum applicants are attempting to bypass immigration controls. Sure he has. And his formula for success? We refuse to live up to our obligations under international law. Sounds like a winner! But then - this is Ian O'Doherty, so why expect more than 'controversial' guff?

jank wrote: »

One can always do 'more' but given the level of resources at hand and the number of over-stayers and the cycle of appeals clogging the system I do not think Ireland is doing too bad.........

..........The 'we can do more' is just a method to endlessly argue a point. Ireland could direct 15% of its taxbase to this problems, yet why not direct 16%, we can do more sure...

So the question should but what is deemed appropriate and how much will it cost?

It is indeed a valid question,but through all of the too'ing and fro'ing of the discussion we rarely see or hear any concerns raised about the cost of relaxing our requirements to allow for greater immigration.

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

Perhaps,It would indeed be worth the risk in order to prove/disprove the theory that this would be a zero-cost move,with the new arrivals all helping to perform the tasks which our native population are less than keen to perform....Butchers,Bakers,Candlestick Makers.....and perhaps Binmen ?

Financing stuff,particularly stuff relating to running a State largely comes back down to the basics of Insurance.....

"The Premiums of the Many paying for the claims of the Few"

However,once you have passed a certain point in this equation,the system fails...no if's,but's or maybe's...it collapses.

Quite what effect the relaxing of our long-standing rules would have as our newly legalized "Families" began to reassemble and seek the protections of our Education,Health and Welfare systems,is a moot point,particularly in the light of the precarious balance between contributor vs recipient numbers as it is...?

My own small contact with the DP clients from the Mosney facility appears to indicate a general acceptance amongst them that things could be worse....a LOT worse...but then maybe they haven't been visited by the concerned radicals yet ?

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is indeed a valid question,but through all of the too'ing and fro'ing of the discussion we rarely see or hear any concerns raised about the cost of relaxing our requirements to allow for greater immigration.

The accepted wisdom appears to indicate that our newly unrestriced Immigrant Stream will ...

Amazing how quickly a discussion about sorting out problems with the asylum system transforms into 'relaxed/unrestricted immigration'. It's as if you're passing over the actual issue at hand in favour of countering an argument you just made up yourself! Surely not?

AlekSmart wrote: »

My own small contact with the DP clients from the Mosney facility appears to indicate a general acceptance amongst them that things could be worse....a LOT worse...but then maybe they haven't been visited by the concerned radicals yet ?

Sure they could be dead, or as The Stranglers would have it:

Well what a bummer
I can think of a lot worse places to be
Like down in the streets
Or down in the sewer
Or even on the end of a skewer

alastair wrote: »

Except for repeating the same old canard of 'direct flights' and casually assuming that all asylum applicants are attempting to bypass immigration controls. Sure he has. And his formula for success? We refuse to live up to our obligations under international law. Sounds like a winner! But then - this is Ian O'Doherty, so why expect more than 'controversial' guff?

I'm not an I O'D fan.

However just because he writes it does'nt render the opinion null and void as a discusion topic.

One could equally pose the question as to why so many asylum and refugee applications are found to be baseless,or why these baseless one's end up on our books for so long.

To be honest,the "controversial" tag has long ago dropped off this topic,it's debated up and down the country with most people,I suspect,making up their own minds and walking on.....

To suggest that Ireland is deliberately refusing to honour it's obligations under International Law is,to me,utter nonsense.

I'm quite certain that this "International Community",many of which are equally struggling to balance the Debts of Empire with modern notions of responsibility,are quite recognisant of reality.

We have a functional and provenly effective Asylum System,perfectly suited to our size and situation.....It has only "failed" due to our native inability to Manage stuff that works,whilst pouring resources into stuff that is off-the-wall.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not an I O'D fan.

However just because he writes it does'nt render the opinion null and void as a discusion topic.

Nope - but the factual misrepresentations and comedy 'suggested solution' do.

AlekSmart wrote: »

To suggest that Ireland is deliberately refusing to honour it's obligations under International Law is,to me,utter nonsense.

That's the nonsense that Ian O'Doherty proposes.

alastair wrote: »

Amazing how quickly a discussion about sorting out problems with the asylum system transforms into 'relaxed/unrestricted immigration'. It's as if you're passing over the actual issue at hand in favour of countering an argument you just made up yourself! Surely not?

Surely not indeed.

However,the discussion at large does tend to broaden in this manner,from both perspectives.

Once can rarely discuss the current Asylum vacuum,without quickly being advised of the fact that our DP Centres contain large numbers of people who just want to Work...to provide for themselves...to have their own place etc etc.

All very valid issues,but ones which,dei facto,move the goalposts from Asylum to Leave to remain...Compassionate/Ministerial Leave.....Immigration,call it what you will.

Left to it's own devices our Asylum System has the capibility to work very well indeed,but the failure to manage it effectively dating back to the early 2000's,has now left us in a quandary.

It's a functional system,so lets knock it down and build it up again,to see if it can meet the strident demands ?

alastair wrote: »

That's the nonsense that Ian O'Doherty proposes.

I'm not sure I'm on the correct page but is this the nonsensical bit ?

But unless we make it clear that we respect our borders and the only way to enter this country is the legal way - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/its-time-we-closed-the-door-on-our-failed-asylum-policy-30592113.html#sthash.HO8DKO9i.dpuf

AlekSmart wrote: »

Surely not indeed.

However,the discussion at large does tend to broaden in this manner,from both perspectives.

Nice try, but no thanks. Apples and Oranges.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not sure I'm on the correct page but is this the nonsensical bit ?

Nonsense:

The simple reality is that 'asylum' is a myth that has been propagated by vested interests

Inevitably, the lobbyists, quangos and special interest groups will squawk that we have to abide by international laws and treaties. But you don't see France or Australia worrying about their international 'obligations' when those obligations run contrary to the best interests of their own people.Which, lest we forget, is the ultimate job of any government.

alastair wrote: »

Nice try, but no thanks. Apples and Oranges.

I'm not sure I understand your point ?

Are you suggesting that there is NO linkage,in the public mind,between the Asylum and Refugee processes and the broader issue of Immigration as a whole (Legal or Illegal) ?

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your point ?

They're separate and distinct issues. And you're dishonestly attempting to conflate them.

alastair wrote: »

Nonsense:

Quote:
The simple reality is that 'asylum' is a myth that has been propagated by vested interests

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

Inevitably, the lobbyists, quangos and special interest groups will squawk that we have to abide by international laws and treaties. But you don't see France or Australia worrying about their international 'obligations' when those obligations run contrary to the best interests of their own people.Which, lest we forget, is the ultimate job of any government.

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