Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

President Higgins criticises Direct Provision

2

Comments

  • #32
    mister gullible
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 463 ✭✭mister gullible


    The fact remains that asylum seekers have not been treated fairly and we should be grateful that someone with a social conscience and media access has given them support. btw I don't think anyone in the main political parties should be sneering at anyone given their performance over the last couple of decades.


  • #33
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Where did you get that idea?

    Because it is true.

    The Presidency is a largely ceremonial role. If Higgins were to show favouritism towards the Labour Party it would be against the constitutional. The limited discretionary powers does not allow for a party political role.


  • #34
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The Presidency is a largely ceremonial role.
    Oh now that's a subtly different proposition to the original.

    I'd rather focus on the original statement.

    The original suggestion was that the President is "supposed to be" apolitical.

    It is incorrect.

    We have had plenty of Presidents who became apolitical upon assuming office. That is a historical observation. Nowhere does it say that the President should generally avoid expressing political opinions. In fact, the only conclusion you could draw from actually reading the constitution is that the President's expression of political opinions is usually constitutionally immune from interference from the courts and the Houses of the Oireachtas.


  • #35
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Oh no! Not a gap in their CV! Those always lead to awkward interview questions!
    Well, yeah. Getting a job is gonna be a lot harder if you've a few years behind you out of the workforce.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I hope they get Sky Sports in their accommodation.
    Seriously?


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Unless they appeal.

    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Ah... don't get me wrong... I don't think asylum seekers are living in the lap of luxury under direct provision.. but when our tax-payers are paying for people who may have absolutely no basis for claiming refugee status I am not rushing to make their living conditions markedly better from anyone else in this country living on the breadline. Of course those that do fit the criteria should be granted asylum quickly.
    Allowing asylum seekers to work isn't just making their lives better for the sake of it. It allows them independence from handouts (saving the taxpayer money) so it hardly "make(s) their living conditions markedly better from anyone else in this country living on the breadline".

    RandomName2 wrote: »
    But what's with this example of refugees from Syria? I mean, at least people in Syria are in the midst of a bloody civil war... but did they feel that the wages here were better than Turkey or something? Was there a checklist (It just has to be an English speaking country which uses the Euro! Nothing else will do!)
    Maybe they have family or friends here and given the conditions many refugees in Turkey are subjected to it makes sense not to seek asylum there. Plus, expecting southern European countries to take all the asylum burden is neither realistic, not fair.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    This is incorrect. The extreme majority of applicants who are refused asylum are not deported. They may leave voluntarily or, as is common, be granted leave to remain on foot of a family relationship, despite having previously failed all their applications for protection (as well as further applications brought on behalf of children).
    Source?
    They can have leave to remain granted but this is discretionary.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    The delaying tactics and associated costs are quite incredible. The reason for this persistence is the sure knowledge that leave to remain is a likely conclusion, however unfounded a protection claim, and however certain the refusal of that protection claim.
    The appeals process is a problem but this is why the appeals can reform by reviewing the three grounds refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain on humanitarian grounds rather than waiting for successive judicial review by the High Court.
    jank wrote: »
    So, the question is why do we have thousands of people waiting for years and years for a decision? What it the hold up?
    See above.
    jank wrote: »
    I would rather time and effort being made to streamline the process so people are not waiting years and years. Make an application and limit it to one appeal. Of course there are vested interests here in the legal scetor who are making a fortune on this process and numerous appeals.
    Agreed.
    jank wrote: »
    What you want to do is fix a symptom that would have other consequences like attracting an even greater number of fraudulent claimants rather than fixing the underlying cause, the long and convoluted application and appeals process itself. Any rational person could see that.
    Despite our extremely low acceptance rate of asylum seekers, we still have thousands. Allowing them to work while their status is being decided wouldn't incentivise them. It'd just allow them independence while they're waiting lessening the burden on the taxpayer. As it stands, they can't even fecking cook for themselves.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Because it is true.

    The Presidency is a largely ceremonial role. If Higgins were to show favouritism towards the Labour Party it would be against the constitutional. The limited discretionary powers does not allow for a party political role.

    No it's not. The president doesn't have a gag order on them although they can be impeached by the Oireachtas for serious misconduct)
    Presidents have always taken a stance on issues they consider important like Robinson meeting with Gerry Adams, her refusal to chair a committee on the UN (despite being asked to by the government)

    The President is free to take a stance on issues, especially those relating to human rights in their capacity as the guardian of the constitution (though the High Court recently found DP did not breach human rights, this was far more to do with how the applicants went about the case and the door is still open for it to be retried).
    As Conorh91 pointed out, there is nothing preventing the president criticising government policy or existing laws. Should Higgins stay silent on the upcoming marriage equality referendum for example?


  • #36
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Allowing asylum seekers to work isn't just making their lives better for the sake of it. It allows them independence from handouts
    It also provides an incentive for illegal immigration via the guise of an application for international protection.

    Learn your history. That's why Ireland instituted the Direct provision scheme to begin with.
    Source?
    They can have leave to remain granted but this is discretionary.
    Of course it is discretionary.

    Anyone who is ignorant of the leave-to-remain system is ignorant of the protection system as a whole.

    Please narrow it down. On what do you seek a source?
    The appeals process is a problem
    And what is your alternative solution?

    I too am ethically opposed to protracted appeals but there are important legal barriers to restriction of appellant rights.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Well, yeah. Getting a job is gonna be a lot harder if you've a few years behind you out of the workforce.

    That's hardly the most important matter at hand.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    Seriously?

    No, not really.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    Allowing asylum seekers to work isn't just making their lives better for the sake of it. It allows them independence from handouts (saving the taxpayer money) so it hardly "make(s) their living conditions markedly better from anyone else in this country living on the breadline".

    It has long been established that although allowing asylum seekers to work has benefits for both host country and asylum seekers, that the negatives outweigh them; namely that it provides too much of an incentive for labour based migration and it reduces the likelihood of our reducing the massive drain of our live register.

    Lockstep wrote: »
    Maybe they have family or friends here and given the conditions many refugees in Turkey are subjected to it makes sense not to seek asylum there. Plus, expecting southern European countries to take all the asylum burden is neither realistic, not fair.

    Is it realistic or fair to expect a country like Turkey to take the majority of Syrian refugees? Yes to both. It is an extremely large Muslim country, on the border of Syria, with strong cultural ties, and has a large responsibility in the continuation of the civil war!

    Not sure why southern European countries should shoulder any of the responsibility of such asylum seekers. America might though - it certainly is not blameless in the current situation.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    No it's not.

    Yes it is. The presidency is an apolitical office and largely ceremonial. The president is not allowed to represent a political party in his capacity as president, merely the wishes of the government. Now Higgins may have been speaking as an individual, and that is allowed insofar that it goes, but he cannot "suggest" legislation.


  • #38
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    he cannot "suggest" legislation.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The presidency is an apolitical office
    legal source on these, please?


  • #39
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    That's hardly the most important matter at hand.
    Grand, seeing as you picked up on that point specifically in my previous post, I was addressing it.



    RandomName2 wrote: »
    T
    It has long been established that although allowing asylum seekers to work has benefits for both host country and asylum seekers, that the negatives outweigh them; namely that it provides too much of an incentive for labour based migration and it reduces the likelihood of our reducing the massive drain of our live register.
    Established where?


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Is it realistic or fair to expect a country like Turkey to take the majority of Syrian refugees? Yes to both. It is an extremely large Muslim country, on the border of Syria, with strong cultural ties, and has a large responsibility in the continuation of the civil war!
    Those aren't good reasons as to why Turkey should take most of the refugees. That they're neighbours and Muslim means feck all.
    Turkey is a fairly large country but that doesn't mean they can easily absorb 1.6million Syrian refugees (the current number in Turkey)
    Do you know how much strain this puts on a country's resources? Turkey isn't exactly the world's wealthiest country. Why should they take most of the burden just because they're nearby?

    Also, how exactly does Turkey have a "large responsibility" for the Syrian Civil War's continuation?
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Not sure why southern European countries should shoulder any of the responsibility of such asylum seekers. America might though - it certainly is not blameless in the current situation.
    You were complaining about why they'd end up in Ireland.
    Sure we're not the closest but if you're fleeing genocide, civil war and mass displacement, you're going to flee as soon as you can. Geographically, southern European countries have to face up to a lot more refugees (as they're nearer) but they can't be expected to shoulder this alone and have this sort of strain on their resources.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Yes it is. The presidency is an apolitical office and largely ceremonial.
    Ceremonial, yes, apolitical, no.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    The president is not allowed to represent a political party in his capacity as president, merely the wishes of the government. Now Higgins may have been speaking as an individual, and that is allowed insofar that it goes, but he cannot "suggest" legislation.
    Since when? Higgins hasn't been representing a political party as president? He can certainly suggest legislation, the same way you or I can. Although as with you and I, it doesn't obligate the government to initiate it.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    It also provides an incentive for illegal immigration via the guise of an application for international protection.
    No it doesn't. Allowing them to work while they're having their claim processed doesn't equate with a right to remain. Not sure why being allowed to work while waiting should be a problem unless you think that conditions should be kept very harsh to discourage applications. Which is a wonderfully Victorian mindset to have. Get back in your workhouse urchin. Go on, get!
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Learn your history. That's why Ireland instituted the Direct provision scheme to begin with.
    Source?
    In July 1999, it was decided that asylum seekers could apply to work but in the first 6 months, only 67 permits were granted. And seeing as direct provision was brought in in 1999....well you see where I'm going with questioning your claim.
    source

    As Alan Shatter said at the time "“People who have come here seeking safety and asking to be allowed to stay should be allowed, within a reasonable period of coming here, to work while awaiting a decision to be made,” he said." He's done a bit of a u-turn on it now.

    Learn your history.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Of course it is discretionary.
    Jeez, relax.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Please narrow it down. On what do you seek a source?
    Your claims in the quoted text. I'll repost it again.
    This is incorrect. The extreme majority of applicants who are refused asylum are not deported. They may leave voluntarily or, as is common, be granted leave to remain on foot of a family relationship, despite having previously failed all their applications for protection (as well as further applications brought on behalf of children).
    conorh91 wrote: »
    And what is your alternative solution?
    Did you read my post? I'll post it again.
    Lockstep wrote:
    The appeals process is a problem but this is why the appeals can reform by reviewing the three grounds refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain on humanitarian grounds rather than waiting for successive judicial review by the High Court.
    If these appeals were reviewed simultaneously instead of successively, it'd make things a lot faster and more streamlined.


  • #40
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Lockstep wrote: »
    They can have leave to remain granted but this is discretionary.

    The appeals process is a problem but this is why the appeals can reform by reviewing the three grounds refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain on humanitarian grounds rather than waiting for successive judicial review by the High Court

    Despite our extremely low acceptance rate of asylum seekers, we still have thousands. Allowing them to work while their status is being decided wouldn't incentivise them. It'd just allow them independence while they're waiting lessening the burden on the taxpayer. As it stands, they can't even fecking cook for themselves.

    I'm not so sure this permission to work would lessen the Taxpayer's burden at all.
    I'd suggest that the vast majority of such work would be at Minimum Wage or Zero Hour contract basis.
    I would further suggest that the Family Income Supplement payment would become the major portion of this new found freedom to work.

    A significant part of this issue revolves around what occurs AFTER the applicants status is "Decided".

    The notion that the Irish State may take such action usually sends all and sundry into a tizzy,even after the appelant has been resident here for years.

    Yet,for the system to work,it has to operate as most such systems elsewhere do.....those meeting the criteria are accepted,the rest travel on.

    As yet,I know of no other method of operating any functional Asylum system.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #41
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    I'm not so sure this permission to work would lessen the Taxpayer's burden at all.
    I'd suggest that the vast majority of such work would be at Minimum Wage or Zero Hour contract basis.
    I would further suggest that the Family Income Supplement payment would become the major portion of this new found freedom to work.
    It'd be a fairly straightforward system: continuation of DP for those without adequate income to survive but if someone is self-sufficient, great. Syrian refugees include professionals, surely their skills could be better utilised than rotting in a DP hostel?

    Refugees would not have entitlement to social welfare, beyond what they already have (medical cards). Likewise, those on refugee visas could be exempted from accessing schemes like FIS.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Not sure why being allowed to work while waiting should be a problem unless you think that conditions should be kept very harsh to discourage applications.
    No. There's a far more obvious reason to refuse the right to access employment.

    If every person who landed in the State were entitled to work here, it would effectively disable our immigration controls, and undermine the whole point of having working visas. Any Tom, Dick or Hassain could rock up and start work, grounded on a bogus claim.

    Source?
    In July 1999, it was decided that asylum seekers could apply to work but in the first 6 months, only 67 permits were granted. And seeing as direct provision was brought in in 1999....well you see where I'm going with questioning your claim.
    [/url]
    You've got this all wrong

    Ireland instituted direct provision in anticipation of an influx.

    There was no influx because we anticipated the influx and took steps to prevent it.

    Let me explain. At the turn of the millennium, the Brits changed the way they processed asylum claims. In effect, they introduced direct provision. Up until that point, Ireland had been quite soft on asylum, but so were the Brits, and the UK is generally a very attractive location for certain nationalities with an imperial connection to the UK, so many asylum seekers didn't bother with Ireland.

    So, in anticipation of an influx, we changed our rules on how asylum seekers receive benefits transfers, and on their employment rights.

    Your claims in the quoted text.
    It's not clear how I can provide a source to demonstrate that "many" qualify for leave-to-remain. I know it from personal experience, and although I could make an educated goes at the figure, I deliberately used the vague term of "many" because I don't believe my estimate is verifiable.

    There are two 'arms' to leave to remain. The first is subsidiary protection, with new and improved procedures that now greatly favors the Applicant. Apparently SP has noticeably increased since the new regs took effect, and we're talking figures in the hundreds.

    Next, the second stage.

    The proposal to deport issues, and the Applicant writes to the Minister outlining his grounds for humanitarian leave (almost always marriage and children, but sometimes illness or repetition of the original asylum claim). The Minister is legally obliged to take eleven factors into account, including marriage and family life. If the Applicant is married to an EU citizen or has Irish-born children, or is not from a 'problem country', I can assure you that his chances of being deported are very slim. Either (i) he will be granted leave to remain by the Department, or (ii) the deportation order will not be executed by AGS, and it will lapse after three months. This is the practical reality.

    It is also worth mentioning that an applicant sometimes leaves the Protection system, abandons all claims, and pursues residency through marriage. There are no figures on that, because they would be a bureaucratic nightmare to collect.

    The bottom line is this: we are in absolutely no position to deport a substantial proportion of the total number of applicants for protection.

    We are far too small a country for that, and so we only exercise strategic deportations (Nigeria, Pakistan), or deportation where the individual concerned is particularly undesirable


  • #43
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    ectoraige wrote: »
    I imagine they would. I imagine too though that having found safe refuge, once they try to start building a new life for themselves, they would then give their right arm to get a place in a system that allows them to do so. Institutionalisation seems to lead to as many problems as it solves, we have whole families who are spending the formative years of their children stuck in limbo for no good reason.

    Over 90% of the claims are bogus. The reason so many are there for so long is that there are endless appeals, for which the sole purpose is to frustrate the system.

    Almost all have their cases initially decided in 18 months. This context isn't reported often enough when the media discusses direct provision.


  • #44
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    conorh91 wrote: »
    No. There's a far more obvious reason to refuse the right to access employment.

    If every person who landed in the State were entitled to work here, it would effectively disable our immigration controls, and undermine the whole point of having working visas. Any Tom, Dick or Hassain could rock up and start work, grounded on a bogus claim.
    There's a difference between an "entitlement" to work and being allowed work. This could operate on a discretionary basis or their working conditions could be restricted. The idea being to allow them independence while their claim is being processed.

    At any rate, I've no issues with foreigners being allowed work in Ireland, unless they are a security threat etc.

    conorh91 wrote: »
    You've got this all wrong

    Ireland instituted direct provision in anticipation of an influx.
    There was no influx because we anticipated the influx and took steps to prevent it.
    Source?
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Let me explain. At the turn of the millennium, the Brits changed the way they processed asylum claims. In effect, they introduced direct provision. Up until that point, Ireland had been quite soft on asylum, but so were the Brits, and the UK is generally a very attractive location for certain nationalities with an imperial connection to the UK, so many asylum seekers didn't bother with Ireland.

    So, in anticipation of an influx, we changed our rules on how asylum seekers receive benefits transfers, and on their employment rights.
    Again, source?
    conorh91 wrote: »
    It's not clear how I can provide a source to demonstrate that "many" qualify for leave-to-remain. I know it from personal experience, and although I could make an educated goes at the figure, I deliberately used the vague term of "many" because I don't believe my estimate is verifiable.
    You said
    The extreme majority of applicants who are refused asylum are not deported. They may leave voluntarily or, as is common, be granted leave to remain on foot of a family relationship, despite having previously failed all their applications for protection (as well as further applications brought on behalf of children).
    Citation needed. If you're gonna make such a sweeping statement as to say "vast majority" you really need to be able to source your claims beyond anecdotal evidence.

    So far, you've made a lot of statements and provided no evidence when requested. That's not how this forum works.


  • #45
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    Lockstep wrote: »
    There's a difference between an "entitlement" to work and being allowed work. This could operate on a discretionary basis or their working conditions could be restricted. The idea being to allow them independence while their claim is being processed.

    The reason they're not allowed work is for two reasons, it would reduce the incentive for people to apply for working visas through the normal channels. Secondly it doesn't allow for the applicant to claim that they've put down roots in the community and should be allowed stay on that basis.


  • #46
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Source?
    My source is I myself was a small child when the regime changed, and even I became aware of this through general current affairs awareness. I can only assume you are very young altogether because this is fairly common knowledge. Nevertheless, if you use google, you can easily discover the origins of direct provision.

    The then-Minister for Justice with responsibility for the Protection process, John O'Donoghue, was quoted in the minutes of the Reconvened Interdepartmental Committee on Immigration, Asylum and Related Issues, November 8, 1999 as having stated “If my scheme is more attractive than the British scheme, it must stand to any kind of logical reasoning that I would have a disproportionate number coming here from Britain”.

    http://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/directdiscrimination.pdf

    I have given you plenty of information on the history of the Irish and British system which you can go and verify on your own time. I am not paid to answer endless requests for information which is well-established in the public domain, in order to save time for strangers on the internet who promptly ignore the veracity of the statement, once a source is handed to them.
    Again, source?
    This is what I am talking about.

    No.

    I will not go and wikipedia the history of the British asylum system. I absolutely refuse to do someone's homework, when the relevant information is readily available to anyone who will undertake a cursory search.

    I appreciate that it is sometimes unfair to say 'use google' when asked for a source, but in this case, your request is akin to someone pestering another user for a source on easily established, non contentious historical facts like "who was Home Secretary in the 1929 UK Government… SOURCE??!".

    Citation needed. If you're gonna make such a sweeping statement as to say "vast majority" you really need to be able to source your claims beyond anecdotal evidence.
    Not when this statement I made was (i) left deliberately imprecise and (ii) was clearly premonished by myself as being of an anecdotal nature, in the sense that the same statistics are unlikely to exist anywhere.

    And another thing.

    Where did I say 'vast majority'?
    That's not how this forum works.
    Haranguing people with whom you disagree isn't exactly benefitting this discussion.


  • #47
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    conorh91 wrote: »
    My source is I myself was a small child when the regime changed, and even I became aware of this through general current affairs awareness. I can only assume you are very young altogether because this is fairly common knowledge. Nevertheless, if you use google, you can easily discover the origins of direct provision.
    So you can't source your claim.
    Grand.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    The then-Minister for Justice with responsibility for the Protection process, John O'Donoghue, was quoted in the minutes of the Reconvened Interdepartmental Committee on Immigration, Asylum and Related Issues, November 8, 1999 as having stated “If my scheme is more attractive than the British scheme, it must stand to any kind of logical reasoning that I would have a disproportionate number coming here from Britain”.

    http://www.flac.ie/download/pdf/directdiscrimination.pdf
    Congrats, you've finally given a source. Sadly for you, it shows that the key problem with asylum seekers before DP was implemented was welfare given that they could access welfare on the same levels as others in the state. This makes sense but it's a separate argument to allowing people to work instead of direct provision. It's important to note that Britain allows its asylum seekers to work after one year.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    I have given you plenty of information on the history of the Irish and British system which you can go and verify on your own time. I am not paid to answer endless requests for information which is well-established in the public domain, in order to save time for strangers on the internet who promptly ignore the veracity of the statement, once a source is handed to them.
    Again, that's not how this forum works. If you make a claim, it is your job to source and defend it.
    "The government is made up of lizard people. You want a source? GOOGLE IT YOURSELF."
    conorh91 wrote: »
    This is what I am talking about.

    No.

    I will not go and wikipedia the history of the British asylum system. I absolutely refuse to do someone's homework, when the relevant information is readily available to anyone who will undertake a cursory search.

    I appreciate that it is sometimes unfair to say 'use google' when asked for a source, but in this case, your request is akin to someone pestering another user for a source on easily established, non contentious historical facts like "who was Home Secretary in the 1929 UK Government… SOURCE??!".


    Not when this statement I made was (i) left deliberately imprecise and (ii) was clearly premonished by myself as being of an anecdotal nature, in the sense that the same statistics are unlikely to exist anywhere.
    Same as above.
    If you can't source your claims. Don't make them. Asking someone to back up their statements is a reasonable request.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Where did I say 'vast majority'?
    You said the extreme majority
    If you want to get pedantic about the difference between "vast" and "extreme", then fair enough.

    conorh91 wrote: »
    Haranguing people with whom you disagree isn't exactly benefitting this discussion.
    Asking someone for evidence is "haranguing" them now?


  • #48
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lockstep wrote: »
    So you can't source your claim.
    Grand.
    I can. I gave you a source.

    You asked for a source for my comment that Ireland instituted Direct Provision in anticipation of an influx of immigration, under a guise of seeking protection on foot of changes in the UK.

    I gave you a source. You dismiss it.

    Normally I might just shrug, except anyone who knows about direct provision understands that you are wrong. In 2013, John Cotter BL, writing about asylum in the Irish Law Times observed:

    The  direct  provision and  dispersal scheme was introduced as a reaction to the decision of the UK government to introduce a similar scheme in the UK commencing in April 2000. In particular, there was a concern that more generous benefit entitlements for asylum seekers in Ireland than in the UK would constitute a “pull factor” for asylum seekers to choose Ireland as a destination

    Source: pp 23-25 (2013) 31 Irish Law Times. "THE GERMAN FEDERAL  CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND WELFARE BENEFITS FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE  DIRECT  PROVISION AND  DISPERSAL SCHEME IN IRELAND? — PART II"

    let me now explain why I have a problem with your last two posts, which have been nothing but demands for sources. The first reason is that, the source, although now provided, are well established and should be known by people before they express an opinion. Nobody is paid for these discussions. You have a certain level of responsibility not to thwart the flow of a discussion by simply responding to readily available information with "source", "source", "source", which is what you have been doing.

    Again, where data is not readily available, or where there are grounds to dispute it, obviously a source should be provided when requested. BUT I personally take issue with requests for sources that stem solely from laziness or an unwillingness to inform yourself of very basic facts.

    The sources for these well-established historical facts have now been provided in a roundabout way, but don't be surprised in future if you get ignored for haranguing one-word requests of "source?" for easily google-able facts of history that even a semi-informed person would not dispute.
    You said the extreme majority
    Yes. I indicated that the extreme majority of relevant individuals are not deported.

    Here's the problem.

    You didn't ask for a source on that until now. Or if you did, it was unclear what statement you were seeking a source on. I have already had to ask you to detail what source you are seeking, after you quoted a block of text where a number of discrete assertions were made by me.

    So in this case, I don't mind providing a source, because it's a more obscure fact. If you ask for a source politely, I'll be glad to provide it. But don't accuse me of not providing sources on rare occasions where it wasn't requested by you. These stupid diversionary tactics are not helping the discussion.


  • #49
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I can. I gave you a source.

    You asked for a source for my comment that Ireland instituted Direct Provision in anticipation of an influx of immigration, under a guise of seeking protection on foot of changes in the UK.

    I gave you a source. You dismiss it.
    No I didn't. here you claim that Ireland instituted direct provision as allowing asylum seekers to work was incentivising illegal immigration. When in fact, when you finally provided a source, it stated that the key issue was to do with asylum seekers' welfare entitlements. Not being able to access the labour market.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Normally I might just shrug, except anyone who knows about direct provision understands that you are wrong. In 2013, John Cotter BL, writing about asylum in the Irish Law Times observed:

    The  direct  provision and  dispersal scheme was introduced as a reaction to the decision of the UK government to introduce a similar scheme in the UK commencing in April 2000. In particular, there was a concern that more generous benefit entitlements for asylum seekers in Ireland than in the UK would constitute a “pull factor” for asylum seekers to choose Ireland as a destination

    Source: pp 23-25 (2013) 31 Irish Law Times. "THE GERMAN FEDERAL  CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND WELFARE BENEFITS FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE  DIRECT  PROVISION AND  DISPERSAL SCHEME IN IRELAND? — PART II"
    Thanks. Once again, you've shown that it was benefit entitlements which was the issue rather than asylum seekers being able to access the labour markets. You're undermining your own argument.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    let me now explain why I have a problem with your last two posts, which have been nothing but demands for sources. The first reason is that, the source, although now provided, are well established and should be known by people before they express an opinion. Nobody is paid for these discussions. You have a certain level of responsibility not to thwart the flow of a discussion by simply responding to readily available information with "source", "source", "source", which is what you have been doing.
    In any debate, when asserting statements, it's your job to back them up. Expecting others to prove your own points is, at best, very lazy.
    What is asserted without evidence can be discounted without evidence.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Again, where data is not readily available, or where there are grounds to dispute it, obviously a source should be provided when requested. BUT I personally take issue with requests for sources that stem solely from laziness or an unwillingness to inform yourself of very basic facts.

    The sources for these well-established historical facts have now been provided in a roundabout way, but don't be surprised in future if you get ignored for haranguing one-word requests of "source?" for easily google-able facts of history that even a semi-informed person would not dispute.
    Wait, you're getting annoyed at being expected to back up your claims and then accusing others of laziness?

    Did you know asylum seekers are all lizard people? I can't be bothered to provide any evidence so you'll have to Google it yourself.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Yes. I indicated that the extreme majority of relevant individuals are not deported.
    And your source is...what?
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Here's the problem.

    You didn't ask for a source on that until now. Or if you did, it was unclear what statement you were seeking a source on. I have already had to ask you to detail what source you are seeking, after you quoted a block of text where a number of discrete assertions were made by me.

    So in this case, I don't mind providing a source, because it's a more obscure fact. If you ask for a source politely, I'll be glad to provide it. But don't accuse me of not providing sources on rare occasions where it wasn't requested by you. These stupid diversionary tactics are not helping the discussion.
    How exactly was it unclear? I quoted part of your post and asked for the relevant source. What's the issue?


  • #50
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lockstep wrote: »
    No I didn't. here you claim that Ireland instituted direct provision as allowing asylum seekers to work was incentivising illegal immigration.
    No I didn't. In fairness, the post could be read the way you interpreted it, but it's not a rational interpretation.

    To clarify, I indicated that a regime granting working rights to arrivals provides an incentive for immigration under the guise of an application for protection.

    A fear of incentives for immigration under the guise of an application for protection is what inspired the Minister for Justice to commence direct provision in the first place. Easy access to employment is one of those incentives. Welfare is another one.

    Your interpretation is thus faulty, because to interpret my words as you have done is tantamount to a claim that I don't believe welfare is one of the relevant incentives. And that's nonsense, because of course welfare was another relevant incentive in creating a potential influx.
    Thanks. Once again, you've shown that it was benefit entitlements which was the issue
    Benefits was one issue. Possibly the greatest issue. But there were other incentives. That's why the author write "In particular".

    'In particular" indicates that there are a number of factors to consider, where one factor predominates others, albeit to an unspecific degree.
    And your source is...what?
    In 2011, the number of individuals whose deportations were effected was 280.

    http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/pac/correspondence/2012-meeting332203/[PAC-R-383]Correspondence-3.5.pdf

    This would be a tiny fraction of the total numbers whose are refused annually or against whom deportation orders are made annually. It's also a small fraction of the total number of deportation orders made in that year which were not acted upon. Those orders come to 2,471 in number.

    http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2012112700072?opendocument#WRV00350

    You can see from the last PQ that a high number of leave to remains are granted annually in respect of persons who were found not to have valid claims to asylum earlier in the process. I already described this as relating to family relationships, in my experience, and the Minister did reference the Zambrano judgment which would appear to substantiate my claim. No doubt you'll next want some statistics on that, but I'm afraid I've already run out of patience.

    There is a very noisy element within any immigration and asylum debate with whom it is simply a waste of time to debate anything.


  • #51
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    conorh91 wrote: »
    No I didn't. In fairness, the post could be read the way you interpreted it, but it's not a rational interpretation.
    Yes it is. You said that allowing them to work would be an incentive for illegal immigration then said this was the reason DP was implemented (even though at the time, very few asylum seekers were granted working permits.

    It's difficult to interpret your post any other way.

    conorh91 wrote: »
    Benefits was one issue. Possibly the greatest issue. But there were other incentives. That's why the author write "In particular".

    'In particular" indicates that there are a number of factors to consider, where one factor predominates others, albeit to an unspecific degree.
    Indeed but only 67 work permits were granted to asylum seekers from July to December 1999 (just before DP was implemented)
    As such, it's difficult to argue that working was a major incentive to apply for asylum, especially compared to welfare payments.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    In 2011, the number of individuals whose deportations were effected was 280.

    http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/pac/correspondence/2012-meeting332203/[PAC-R-383]Correspondence-3.5.pdf

    This would be a tiny fraction of the total numbers whose are refused annually or against whom deportation orders are made annually. It's also a small fraction of the total number of deportation orders made in that year which were not acted upon. Those orders come to 2,471 in number.

    http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2012112700072?opendocument#WRV00350
    Alan Shatter wrote:
    With regard to the numbers evading deportation, it is difficult to produce precise figures. Persons against whom a deportation order has issued may for short periods fail to report to their local immigration office but many subsequently do so. In addition, I am informed that a significant number of persons who are the subject of a Deportation Order will have left the jurisdiction.

    The processing of cases at the repatriation stage is a complex one with obligations to adhere to both domestic and international law and to make decisions in accordance with the UN Convention on Human Rights. The process can be a lengthy one often punctuated with judicial reviews taken by the applicants at various stages including at deportation stage. Accordingly, not all cases fit neatly into particular categories. For example, in the case of families, one member of the family may have lodged a judicial review which in turn may mean that the remainder of the family may not be processed until its outcome is determined. In addition, some applicants may also be party to an application under EU Treaty Rights or through marriage to an Irish citizen or may have been granted leave to remain as a result of these applications. Therefore, it is not possible to provide figures in respect of the remainder of the case load without engaging in a very detailed exercise which could not be justified as it would divert resources from case processing.

    That's fair enough. Thanks for sourcing that.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Yes it is. You said that allowing them to work would be an incentive for illegal immigration then said this was the reason DP was implemented
    No.

    i said that allowing them to work in an incentive for that undesired immigration. Or to borrow the Minister's language, a "pull factor".

    But when I said that is why we instituted DP in the first place, I was referring to the "pull factor", which was made up of various incentives. If that wasn't clear, I have now clarified it twice.

    Have you noticed that the discussion has completely broken down?

    You're refusing to accept clarifications of admittedly hazy language, you're asking for sources on things that are merely opinion. In my view you don't even have a reason to dispute some of the things I am saying, like whether work or benefits was a bigger factor. Who cares which was a bigger factor? What turns on that? Nobody wants to read this pedantic shít so the thread dies.

    Job done.


  • #53
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    conorh91 wrote: »
    No.

    i said that allowing them to work in an incentive for that undesired immigration. Or to borrow the Minister's language, a "pull factor".

    But when I said that is why we instituted DP in the first place, I was referring to the "pull factor", which was made up of various incentives. If that wasn't clear, I have now clarified it twice.
    Once again
    Unfortunately, I'm not telepathic. It's one thing to clarify. It's another to try and claim that your post meant something different to what was clearly stated and should be read as such.
    I'm fairly baffled as to how your post can be inferred any other way
    conorh91 wrote: »
    You're refusing to accept clarifications of admittedly hazy language, you're asking for sources on things that are merely opinion. In my view you don't even have a reason to dispute some of the things I am saying, like whether work or benefits was a bigger factor. Who cares which was a bigger factor? What turns on that? Nobody wants to read this pedantic shít so the thread dies.

    Job done.
    Your 'clarifications' amount to backtracking and arguing others should be capable of
    If you want to retract your post, grand. Otherwise, say what you mean and don't try and switch the goalposts and pretend others should be somehow capable of understanding your post in a different way to how it was written.

    Likewise, if you want to give your opinion, fair enough but don't put your opinion forward as fact and get shirty when clarification is asked.


  • #54
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Once again
    Unfortunately, I'm not telepathic. It's one thing to clarify. It's another to try and claim that your post meant something different to what was clearly stated and should be read as such.
    I'm fairly baffled as to how your post can be inferred any other way


    Your 'clarifications' amount to backtracking and arguing others should be capable of
    If you want to retract your post, grand. Otherwise, say what you mean and don't try and switch the goalposts and pretend others should be somehow capable of understanding your post in a different way to how it was written.

    Likewise, if you want to give your opinion, fair enough but don't put your opinion forward as fact and get shirty when clarification is asked.

    You are personally trying to defend the position that capacity to work (or really, monetary incentives) is not a migratory incentive (or at least that evidence would have to be shown to prove such). This is annoyingly obvious as an example of willful lunacy.

    While your claim that applicants simply being here longer does not make it any more likely that they have any greater legally entitlement to stay is, on the face of it correct, in practice this is not necessarily the case. The potential to marry, have offspring and in short "settle down" is increased the longer that someone is resident - and natural enough; who would willingly put their life on hold? These aspects may not have any direct bearing on their legal entitlement to stay (except where marriage and offspring are with a naturalised partner) but they are almost certainly entertained to a certain extent in appeals; and again, why wouldn't it? If someone has had children here, who are a number of years old at the turn of the upteenth appeal, it would seem unjust to uproot them at that point, as its not their fault the system is bonkers.

    Your "solution" is to let vastly more asylum seekers come here than do at present, and have virtually all the rights of a citizen as soon as they arrive. That is a frankly bizarre position.


  • #55
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lockstep wrote: »
    If you want to retract your post, grand.

    I don't. You have been given a clarification on every point you wanted, except one single point that had already been stated to be merely an anecdote, and on which there are probably no statistics.

    You are now apparently refusing to accept clarification on a point on which absolutely nothing turns anyway, i.e. whether liberal work regime or a liberal benefits regime is a bigger incentive for an influx. Who cares? They are both incentives. I believe both were relevant to the origins of direct provision. Even if you disagree, where are you going with this pointless tangent?

    This is the online version of filibustering.

    Well done. You killed the thread.


  • #56
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I don't. You have been given a clarification on every point you wanted, except one single point that had already been stated to be merely an anecdote, and on which there are probably no statistics.
    If your point remains hammering on that "I said X but you should have known I meant Y" then there's not much I can do. Clarification doesn't mean retroactively claiming your posts meant something different.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    You are now apparently refusing to accept clarification on a point on which absolutely nothing turns anyway, i.e. whether liberal work regime or a liberal benefits regime is a bigger incentive for an influx. Who cares? They are both incentives. I believe both were relevant to the origins of direct provision. Even if you disagree, where are you going with this pointless tangent?
    Not all incentives are the same. Being allowed to drive while waiting for your asylum claim to be processed is an incentive. Being able to access social welfare and enjoy a relatively high standard of living without doing any work is another. Are they comparable? No.
    Likewise, being able to look for work is hardly going to be as attractive as knowing you're entitled to social welfare which offers a better standard of living than working in some other countries. Especially when the previous ability to work was heavily constrained. You are entitled to your opinion but when it's a silly opinion, be prepared to have it challenged.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    You are personally trying to defend the position that capacity to work (or really, monetary incentives) is not a migratory incentive (or at least that evidence would have to be shown to prove such). This is annoyingly obvious as an example of willful lunacy.
    I've zero issue with allowing people to work in this country if they're willing and able to do so, unless they pose a security risk.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    While your claim that applicants simply being here longer does not make it any more likely that they have any greater legally entitlement to stay is, on the face of it correct, in practice this is not necessarily the case. The potential to marry, have offspring and in short "settle down" is increased the longer that someone is resident - and natural enough; who would willingly put their life on hold? These aspects may not have any direct bearing on their legal entitlement to stay (except where marriage and offspring are with a naturalised partner) but they are almost certainly entertained to a certain extent in appeals; and again, why wouldn't it? If someone has had children here, who are a number of years old at the turn of the upteenth appeal, it would seem unjust to uproot them at that point, as its not their fault the system is bonkers.
    If they marry an Irish person, then sound. If they've had kids here but have no other reason to stay then that's their own issue.
    A similar approach is taken to student visas: they're allowed come here and even work part time but there is no right to remain or right of residency.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Your "solution" is to let vastly more asylum seekers come here than do at present, and have virtually all the rights of a citizen as soon as they arrive. That is a frankly bizarre position.
    You think allowing someone to work in Ireland means they "virtually all the rights a citizen has"?
    Bizarre.
    Non-citizens also can't vote, get third level fees, access social welfare, enjoy free movement throughout the EU or access a pension. But hey, if they're allowed work, it's practically the same thing, right?


  • #57
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lockstep wrote: »
    If your point remains hammering on that "I said X but you should have known I meant Y" then there's not much I can do.
    I clarified what I said and accepted that it was ambiguous.

    Having clarified my admittedly ambiguous wording, still you try to insist that I meant something other, i.e. that the availability welfare benefits is not a strong incentive to economic migration.

    Benefits was a strong incentive relative to the UK.
    Work permission was a strong incentive relative to the UK.

    I cannot be more clear on that.
    Likewise, being able to look for work is hardly going to be as attractive as knowing you're entitled to social welfare
    What the Hell is the point of trying to give one incentive a slight advantage over another? Why should anyone get into this ridiculous filibuster? Maybe work availability:welfare has a 60:40 ratio of the incentives… maybe it's 50:50; maybe it's 40:60…. who the hell actually cares? Where are you going with this, what's your point here?

    They are both incentives


  • #58
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Lockstep wrote: »
    I've zero issue with allowing people to work in this country if they're willing and able to do so, unless they pose a security risk.

    So an unlimited number of people can come here for an undefined amount of time to work in unspecified sectors. Positions like that confound rational discussion.

    Lockstep wrote: »
    If they've had kids here but have no other reason to stay then that's their own issue.

    I don't believe that is the case, but I would have to look into it further.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    You think allowing someone to work in Ireland means they "virtually all the rights a citizen has"?
    Bizarre.

    Oh no.. it's my contention that that is probably your position: that applicants should be given virtually all the rights of a citizen.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    Non-citizens also can't vote, get third level fees, access social welfare, enjoy free movement throughout the EU or access a pension. But hey, if they're allowed work, it's practically the same thing, right?

    Well you don't have to be a citizen to get third level free fees, social welfare (in terms of.. let's say healthcare or direct provision), or pension provision so I'd suggest that your understanding of the area to be somewhat hazy. As a caveat, non-citizens are able to vote, albeit only in limited areas.


  • #59
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    conorh91 wrote: »
    I clarified what I said and accepted that it was ambiguous.

    Having clarified my admittedly ambiguous wording, still you try to insist that I meant something other, i.e. that the availability welfare benefits is not a strong incentive to economic migration.

    Benefits was a strong incentive relative to the UK.
    Work permission was a strong incentive relative to the UK.

    I cannot be more clear on that.
    Right, fine. You've backtracked on your post so I'll just work with it.
    Now, what's your evidence that work permission was a "strong incentive" to the UK? In all the sources you've provided, they've highlighted welfare was the key problem with no mention of work.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    What the Hell is the point of trying to give one incentive a slight advantage over another? Why should anyone get into this ridiculous filibuster? Maybe work availability:welfare has a 60:40 ratio of the incentives… maybe it's 50:50; maybe it's 40:60…. who the hell actually cares?

    They are both incentives
    Yes, and not all incentives are the same. DP is an incentive compared to being left to starve on your own. Giving them equal access to social welfare would be an incentive greater still. Surely then, we should abolish DP as it's an incentive: asylum seekers will know they won't starve if they come here.

    Who the hell cares? Well, anyone who'se trying to have a reasonable debate on the issue. It's fairly ridiculous to treat all incentives as of equal weight.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Where are you going with this, what's your point here?
    My point? That not all incentives are equal. Not sure why you're getting so shirty about this.


  • #60
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    So an unlimited number of people can come here for an undefined amount of time to work in unspecified sectors. Positions like that confound rational discussion.
    Actually, it's not.
    Open borders would greatly increase global GDP
    Likewise,
    Milton Friedman wrote:
    “From an economic point of view, unlimited immigration, but limiting access for a decade or so to welfare and similar benefits would be ideal.”

    Likewise, Migrants give back to new communities (often more so than natives)
    If you can point out why this is a bad idea, be my guest.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I don't believe that is the case, but I would have to look into it further.
    Go for it.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Oh no.. it's my contention that that is probably your position: that applicants should be given virtually all the rights of a citizen.
    So even though I haven't said anything about what asylum seekers should be able to access (aside from working), you're criticising me for what is "probably" my position?
    This is getting bizarre when you're accusing me for stuff I haven't even said.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Well you don't have to be a citizen to get third level free fees, social welfare (in terms of.. let's say healthcare or direct provision), or pension provision so I'd suggest that your understanding of the area to be somewhat hazy. As a caveat, non-citizens are able to vote, albeit only in limited areas.
    You said "the rights of a citizen". Access to these for non-citizens is heavily restrained and not a right.
    *For non-citizens to access free third level fees, they either have to be granted asylum or leave to remain (or be a family member of a citizen/asylum seeker) and have been living here for the previous few years.
    *Social welfare: By social welfare, I meant social insurance payments. Fair enough, I assumed you'd know I meant this but maybe I wasn't clear enough.
    *Pensions: Non-citizens don't have a right to pensions
    *The only elections non-citizens can vote in is local elections.
    So yeah, these aren't rights for non-citizens.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Actually, it's not.
    Open borders would greatly increase global GDP

    Okay... I'll bite.

    "Removing borders from a country will allow more people in - people who will want to earn money. This means there can be more jobs, as there is a larger workforce. This means more GDP, everybody wins!"

    This was a loony position adopted to some degree by Fianna Fail (like the "debts will never be called in so there's no need for fiscal oversight in lending" loony position). A workforce doesn't create jobs by itself - certainly not an unskilled one. If it did, then Mali would have the economy of South Korea.

    So leaving aside the grossly negative societal impact that having more people than can be naturalised would inevitably bring, the economic grounds for such an argument are fundamentally unsound.

    Don't really know how much further I have to go into this. How far do you have to go with someone who says the Earth is flat? Look out the window: look out to the horizon. Do you see the curvature of the Earth? Well then, you are wrong.

    But here's another: so you have a huge amount of people come to a first world country (speculative employment seekers) but - oh no! There isn't enough work for all the new, mostly low skilled migrants! Who'da thunk it? (We only have an.... 11.4% unemployment rate :p )

    So what? We let these people who can't find work starve? Is that what you're advocating? Surely not someone like yourself! Unless the state were to deport them or bar them entry to begin with... but that would go against the whole idea of open borders. I dunno... what else? I mean, the state could support these people I suppose...

    Okay. I think I'll stop there. I've given that nonsense enough time.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    Likewise, Migrants give back to new communities (often more so than natives)
    If you can point out why this is a bad idea, be my guest.

    But what happens if the migrants become natives? Well then, they'll have to move again so that they become migrants again, and thus a greater benefit to whatever society they are in! It will be a roundabout of migratory philanthropy!
    Lockstep wrote: »

    Go for it.

    http://www.kodlyons.ie/index.php/news/single/high_court_finds_door_cannot_be_shut_to_father_of_irish_citizen_child_even

    It is very difficult to deport anyone who has offspring in Ireland where the offspring have a right to reside. This is because parental separation is a significant concern in terms of potential impact of deportation on a family. Of course, children born here no longer gain automatic citizenship
    Lockstep wrote: »
    So even though I haven't said anything about what asylum seekers should be able to access (aside from working), you're criticising me for what is "probably" my position?
    This is getting bizarre when you're accusing me for stuff I haven't even said.

    Well you support open borders and you're whole thread of argument is that asylum seekers aren't treated well enough. Most of the time you are playing "cite that statement!" with connorh91, so I'm having to use some supposition to get to your main point.


Advertisement