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

Galwayguy35 · 24-12-2014 6:22pm

Gatling wrote: »

I see that guy who raped a woman while claiming aslyum was granted full residence yesterday or today despite been categorised as highly likely to rape again

Yeah i read that, what the hell did they give him aslyum for?

Gatling · 24-12-2014 7:03pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yeah i read that, what the hell did they give him aslyum for?

Because he has human rights .
He can't be returned to eithrea because he could face death and apparently he showed signs of torture on his application .
Chances are he was already attacking women there .
But now we're stuck waiting for him to do it again so he can be locked up

walshb · 24-12-2014 8:07pm

Gatling wrote: »

Because he has human rights .
He can't be returned to eithrea because he could face death and apparently he showed signs of torture on his application .
Chances are he was already attacking women there .
But now we're stuck waiting for him to do it again so he can be locked up

Yes, we (well, some here) like to import the problems of other countries.

AlekSmart · 24-12-2014 8:25pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yeah i read that, what the hell did they give him aslyum for?

Who knows...but in the absence of any substantive reason,this speculation is probably as accutate as any other....

There is also an underlying reason aslyum seekers are left for years in the hope they will get frustrated and leave .
rgossip30

In this particular case,it would appear that whatever about frustration,leaving was immediately discounted.

rgossip30 · 25-12-2014 11:12am

conorh91 wrote: »

It isn't an advantage.

Independent living is not a criterion for assessment by any of the deciding bodies.

They are not 'left for years' waiting for decisions.

Their claims are processed rapidly in the initial stages, and after they get their final appeal, they may choose to pursue judicial review.

The reason the High Court's asylum list is longer than the ordinary judicial review list is because there are less judges and there is a backlog. These lists are managed by the court, and not by government at any level. The courts have no reason to prefer to delay and frustrate their own lists, so I have to say I think you're talking BS.

M. The backlog has continued for over 10 years hardly efficient .

The link below show cases withdrawn for 2013 at 22.4 % suppose that's BS too.

http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/AJNR-9LED5Q1029825-en/$File/Office%20of%20the%20Refugee%20Applications%20Commissioner%20-%20Annual%20Report%202013.pdf

In the 80's before asylum you could sponsor a non EU to visit Ireland without a problem . The situation today is only the rich and those employed on high salaries can apply.

conorh91 · 26-12-2014 10:09pm

rgossip30 wrote: »

M. The backlog has continued for over 10 years hardly efficient .

Who said anything about "efficient"?

i said the initial decision and the final appeal are rapid.

Most cases get to final appeal before one year. After that, management is by the courts, and not Government.

Nobody in Government or the civil service is trying to frustrate the process. You're just making things up.

rgossip30 · 27-12-2014 11:29am

conorh91 wrote: »

Who said anything about "efficient"?

i said the initial decision and the final appeal are rapid.

Most cases get to final appeal before one year. After that, management is by the courts, and not Government.

Nobody in Government or the civil service is trying to frustrate the process. You're just making things up.

The initial and final decision are rapid just the waiting between these decisions takes years. This is not rapid. The asylum seekers and Judicisary frustrate the process. The government and the civil service are powerless and gutless to change it.
The Asylum system is a shambles and should be abolished . You must have an agenda or just want to drag out an argument . Those that support it should pay for it or take in asylum seekers.

conorh91 · 27-12-2014 7:45pm

rgossip30 wrote: »

The initial and final decision are rapid just the waiting between these decisions takes years. This is not rapid. The asylum seekers and Judicisary frustrate the process.

No it doesn't.

Decision on final appeal is handed down within one year in most cases.

The judiciary are not involved in it.

Asylum seekers may subsequently resort to delaying tactics by engaging a parallel process with well-known delays. Irish litigation is a lengthy process for almost everyone. But the idea that Irish judges are deliberately delaying their own lists is beyond naive.

rgossip30 · 28-12-2014 11:20am

conorh91 wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Decision on final appeal is handed down within one year in most cases.

The judiciary are not involved in it.

Asylum seekers may subsequently resort to delaying tactics by engaging a parallel process with well-known delays. Irish litigation is a lengthy process for almost everyone. But the idea that Irish judges are deliberately delaying their own lists is beyond naive.

To be more precise I meant the lawyers that work on behalf of asylum seekers.I did not mean that Judges are delaying decisions like you suggest ?

conorh91 · 28-12-2014 3:22pm

rgossip30 wrote: »

To be more precise I meant the lawyers that work on behalf of asylum seekers.I did not mean that Judges are delaying decisions like you suggest ?

You said

"There is also an underlying reason aslyum seekers are left for years in the hope they will get frustrated and leave ."

Are you now claiming that lawyers are trying to frustrate their clients' applications, in the hope that the clients will leave the country?

Case management is done solely by the courts and the parties' representatives, so which one are you claiming is thwarting the process?

rgossip30 · 29-12-2014 12:40am

conorh91 wrote: »

You said

"There is also an underlying reason aslyum seekers are left for years in the hope they will get frustrated and leave ."

Are you now claiming that lawyers are trying to frustrate their clients' applications, in the hope that the clients will leave the country?

Case management is done solely by the courts and the parties' representatives, so which one are you claiming is thwarting the process?

The Lawyers acting for clients .

conorh91 · 29-12-2014 3:30pm

rgossip30 wrote: »

The Lawyers acting for clients .

The lawyers acting for the clients are trying to frustrate their clients' applications, in the hope that the clients will leave the country?

Seriously, what are you talking about?

Any claim by anyone that there is a serious attempt by government or by the courts or by legal representatives to keep claimants in the system for many years, in the hope that claimants just leave in frustration, is seriously misguided. It is mostly the bleeding hearts who make this stupid claim, but some of the diehard anti-everything crowd are at it too.

rgossip30 · 30-12-2014 10:54am

conorh91 wrote: »

The lawyers acting for the clients are trying to frustrate their clients' applications, in the hope that the clients will leave the country?

Seriously, what are you talking about?

Any claim by anyone that there is a serious attempt by government or by the courts or by legal representatives to keep claimants in the system for many years, in the hope that claimants just leave in frustration, is seriously misguided. It is mostly the bleeding hearts who make this stupid claim, but some of the diehard anti-everything crowd are at it too.

Are you taking the piss !! The lawyers delay the process for their clients with multiple claims and for a fee . They do NOT hope the client will leave in frustration and I never said or suggested that.

conorh91 · 30-12-2014 5:15pm

rgossip30 wrote: »

Are you taking the piss !! The lawyers delay the process for their clients with multiple claims and for a fee

Workers charging for their labour? Spare me the outrage.

As for your claims about lawyers' motives, anyone who seeks to judicially review an administrative decision has to overcome a serious evidential bar.

Initially, the Minister (or whoever) is free to put before the Court a motion to dismiss the case for having no merit. Indeed, the Court can itself dismiss the case on its own motion. In other words, if there is no 'skeleton case', the case will not proceed.

If the case overcomes this hurdle and continues to run, the Court next has to be satisfied that there is meat on the 'skeleton case'; i.e. it the Applicant has established "substantial grounds" in support of his case and has identified the specific entitlement in law to the relief sought.

Only if the Applicant gets over this hurdle is the case even heard.

In 75% of cases, the Applicant gets over that final hurdle.

In other words 75% of applicants in the asylum list successfully establish substantial grounds for judicial review.

That's a problem for your argument. Clearly, the Court believes that the majority of cases coming before it have substantial grounds. They are not frivolous ways of generating income.

Certainly, there is a mini-industry around asylum in the Law Library. You could say the same about any field of law with a high success rate. Cases that tend to succeed will invite other cases of a similar nature. Is that not common sense to you? Is that not completely obvious?

Now earlier you said this:

rgossip30 wrote: »

There is also an underlying reason aslyum seekers are left for years in the hope they will get frustrated and leave .

Who are you talking about here? Who hopes they get frustrated and leave? That's the initial question I asked and I still haven't got an answer out of you.

You claim it's not the judges. Logic would dictate that lawyers have nothing to gain from their clients "getting frustrated and leaving", so who are you talking about??

I think you're a bit lost here rgossip30

rgossip30 · 31-12-2014 11:52am

conorh91 wrote: »

Workers charging for their labour? Spare me the outrage.

As for your claims about lawyers' motives, anyone who seeks to judicially review an administrative decision has to overcome a serious evidential bar.

Initially, the Minister (or whoever) is free to put before the Court a motion to dismiss the case for having no merit. Indeed, the Court can itself dismiss the case on its own motion. In other words, if there is no 'skeleton case', the case will not proceed.

If the case overcomes this hurdle and continues to run, the Court next has to be satisfied that there is meat on the 'skeleton case'; i.e. it the Applicant has established "substantial grounds" in support of his case and has identified the specific entitlement in law to the relief sought.

Only if the Applicant gets over this hurdle is the case even heard.

In 75% of cases, the Applicant gets over that final hurdle.

In other words 75% of applicants in the asylum list successfully establish substantial grounds for judicial review.

That's a problem for your argument. Clearly, the Court believes that the majority of cases coming before it have substantial grounds. They are not frivolous ways of generating income.

Certainly, there is a mini-industry around asylum in the Law Library. You could say the same about any field of law with a high success rate. Cases that tend to succeed will invite other cases of a similar nature. Is that not common sense to you? Is that not completely obvious?

Now earlier you said this:

Who are you talking about here? Who hopes they get frustrated and leave? That's the initial question I asked and I still haven't got an answer out of you.

You claim it's not the judges. Logic would dictate that lawyers have nothing to gain from their clients "getting frustrated and leaving", so who are you talking about??

I think you're a bit lost here rgossip30

Maybe its you stuck in law books too long . The Lawyers who deal with applications from clients want the process to delay as they get higher fees.

The majority of the Irish population hope they will leave . !! I think a recent comment on another forum ' I get sick and tired of people bleating on about asylum seekers when we cannot even look after our own' .

conorh91 · 31-12-2014 1:15pm

rgossip30 wrote: »

The Lawyers who deal with applications from clients want the process to delay as they get higher fees.

That's not the question I asked you. I already told you it makes no sense for a legal representative to hope his Client leaves the country before he has exhausted all appropriate avenues.

So then, who is responsible for the "underlying reason" asylum seekers are left for years in the "hope they will get frustrated and leave"

rgossip30 wrote: »

There is also an underlying reason aslyum seekers are left for years in the hope they will get frustrated and leave .

Who? Tell me in one word.

AlekSmart · 31-12-2014 2:44pm

conorh91 wrote: »

That's not the question I asked you. I already told you it makes no sense for a legal representative to hope his Client leaves the country before he has exhausted all appropriate avenues.

So then, who is responsible for the "underlying reason" asylum seekers are left for years in the "hope they will get frustrated and leave"

Who? Tell me in one word.

I wonder if,this particular discussion has entered a circular phase ?

I suppose if any one word could be found to describe those who would prefer the entire topic to stay hidden in the background,it would be Politicians.

In our current situation,most domestic political figures appear all at sea when it comes to debating the Asylum issue.

They know all too well,that Asylum as a political issue,only exists within a very small,well defined,very well orchestrated,group of Irelands voters.

Being politicians,they fear alienating ANYBODY,just in case,so they play safe and kick the issue as far down any road they can find.

Most realistic Irish politicians,know that our record on the provision of Asylum,in relation to our ability to fund and manage the ongoing process,has been second to none in the developed world.

Many politicians (and their constituents) are well tired of hearing virtually endless complaints about how uncaring,oppressive and restrictive our Asylum process is,from those who conspiciously fail to give credit to the many successful examples over the decades since our Independence.

There is little doubt,in my opinion,that significant sectors of the Irish Legal Profession,have adapted new and innovative approaches to the entire Asylum,Refugee and Immigration areas.

The speed,agility and acumen of these practitioners has proven quite difficult for the rather more archaic State systems to respond to,which of itself contributes to the length of many such cases in the legal process.

Some of the individuals can be quite colourful,and perhaps indicative of a broader approach in the representative field...?

http://metroeireann.com/article/ceemex-bows-out-after-more-than,3610

“It is a sad decision to take but it wasn’t making economic sense to continue,” he said, adding that Ceemex, which opened in April 2002, had been much more than a law firm.

http://www.courts.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/%28WebFiles%29/E3E3E53F573DC9C2802578CC0033B69A/$FILE/Ezeani%20%26%20Anor%20v%20MJLR.pdf

Given the high-profile cases referred to,we can perhaps appreciate how the "system" can indeed be manipulated from within...?

rgossip30 · 31-12-2014 3:26pm

conorh91 wrote: »

That's not the question I asked you. I already told you it makes no sense for a legal representative to hope his Client leaves the country before he has exhausted all appropriate avenues.

So then, who is responsible for the "underlying reason" asylum seekers are left for years in the "hope they will get frustrated and leave"

Who? Tell me in one word.

The majority of the Irish population as I said before hope they will get frustrated and leave . The lawyers acting for the asylum seekers frustrate the procedure. The new single procedure to be introduced may result in more leave to remain decisions.

mr pickles · 01-01-2015 7:33pm

a case from the Irish courts.
From the courts evening Hereld
Ahmed came to Ireland from South Africa as a business management student in 2006 but that visa had since expired.

Her daughter was Irish-born and the accused intended to stay here, her lawyer said.

She had been in an abusive relationship in the past but was now enjoying a new life with a partner who was supporting her and she was dealing with her problems.

"When you come to Ireland you are expected to have regard for the law and the police officers who are enforcing the law," Judge Mitchell said

she intended to stay here is the key phrase by what right may i ask why did then judge not order her immediate deportation?

AlekSmart · 02-01-2015 2:26am

mr pickles wrote: »

A case from the Irish courts.

From the courts evening Herald

Ahmed came to Ireland from South Africa as a business management student in 2006 but that visa had since expired.

Her daughter was Irish-born and the accused intended to stay here, her lawyer said.

She had been in an abusive relationship in the past but was now enjoying a new life with a partner who was supporting her and she was dealing with her problems.

"When you come to Ireland you are expected to have regard for the law and the police officers who are enforcing the law," Judge Mitchell said

She intended to stay here is the key phrase,by what right may I ask ?
Why did then judge not order her immediate deportation?

Perhaps because it's Christmas ?

conorh91 · 02-01-2015 8:56pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

There is little doubt,in my opinion,that significant sectors of the Irish Legal Profession,have adapted new and innovative approaches to the entire Asylum,Refugee and Immigration areas.

The speed,agility and acumen of these practitioners has proven quite difficult for the rather more archaic State systems to respond to,which of itself contributes to the length of many such cases in the legal process.

The State is well able to pay for a calibre of lawyer to equal or surpass that of the opposing side. The State pays for the best counsel on both sides in cases where legal aid is available, which is the vast majority of cases in asylum matters.

Lawyers for both sides are professionally mandated to superimpose their legal knowledge on the views and the direction that their client wishes to take. Cases are supposed to be run on the basis that a lawyer is the legal voice for his client and nothing more. If a client wants to explore a route that is obnoxious and distasteful to right-thinking people, then the lawyer must give that desire a voice, regardless of personal opinions, stopping short only of actively misleading the court.

Do lawyers benefit from asylum litigation? Of course
Do lawyers run cases that are ethically repulsive in the minds of many hardworking, ordinary people? Yes they do.
Is all of this necessary in a society founded on the rule of law? It is.

Lawyers are a red herring here. The courts are a red herring. To tell you the truth, even the Government has broadly got it right.

The major problem is asylum seekers themselves.

Don't want to end up in a direct provision hostel? Good idea. Don't persist with litigation which you run a substantial risk of losing.

The law is clear enough.

Everyone knows that litigation is a lengthy process and doomed cases will always fail, no matter how long they take to be heard.

If people who are in favour of granting extensive rights of work and residence to anyone who turns up claiming asylum would just stop bleating and listen to how unviable that proposal is, this debate would be far more grown-up.

People who act as policy advocates for asylum seekers are right on one point, and one point alone: litigation takes too long. That is the only point that I think meets the threshold of being seriously weak governance, but it applies to most litigants across the spectrum.

With the exception of litigation delays, we have got our policy on asylum right. I would go so far as to say we should be proud of the equal footing upon which we place applicants when they come before the courts, sparing them no expense in the right to a fair hearing with the best legal representatives available. You won't find the same across the EU.

mr pickles wrote: »

by what right may i ask why did then judge not order her immediate deportation?

Courts do not deport people.

The Minister for Justice issues deportation orders, and the higher courts may review that decision, if it is challenged.

AlekSmart · 04-01-2015 5:29pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Lawyers are a red herring here. The courts are a red herring. To tell you the truth, even the Government has broadly got it right.

The major problem is asylum seekers themselves.

Don't want to end up in a direct provision hostel? Good idea. Don't persist with litigation which you run a substantial risk of losing.

The law is clear enough.

Everyone knows that litigation is a lengthy process and doomed cases will always fail, no matter how long they take to be heard.

If people who are in favour of granting extensive rights of work and residence to anyone who turns up claiming asylum would just stop bleating and listen to how unviable that proposal is, this debate would be far more grown-up.

People who act as policy advocates for asylum seekers are right on one point, and one point alone: litigation takes too long. That is the only point that I think meets the threshold of being seriously weak governance, but it applies to most litigants across the spectrum.

With the exception of litigation delays, we have got our policy on asylum right. I would go so far as to say we should be proud of the equal footing upon which we place applicants when they come before the courts, sparing them no expense in the right to a fair hearing with the best legal representatives available. You won't find the same across the EU.

Courts do not deport people.

The Minister for Justice issues deportation orders, and the higher courts may review that decision, if it is challenged.

Good points,well made...particularly when referencing the "Policy Advocates" who,for a variety of reasons,tend to interfere at a level well beyond their weight.

Take a read of this accusatory article from Lorna Siggins........

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/deported-from-ireland-attacked-and-left-to-die-1.2053069?page=1

Notwithstanding the very many issues surrounding this unfortunate mans arrival and continued residence in the State,Ms Siggins and the Irish Times feel it necessary to find,and explore,every means of putting the Irish State on the hook for this mans alleged death.

So now we have the....Irish Refugee Council and Anti-Deportation Ireland each joining in with Lorna Siggins in yet another attack on the Irish Asylum system,which,as Conorh91 points out,IS working and is nothing for Ireland or it's citizens to be ashamed of.

The level of implied bias in these articles,stands rather in contrast to the old Irish Times claim to be a "Paper of Record" as opposed to a Paper of unsubstantiated accusation.

mr pickles · 06-01-2015 1:51am

The human rights court has decided that you can deport a person and that they can lodge judicial appeals from their home country.
So all these people stringing out their appeals to stay in Ireland can be deported legally now.

mollymosfet · 06-01-2015 4:46am

These arguments frustrate me because they're basically a bunch of privileged white Irish people arguing over an experience they'll never have, often on behalf of impoverished native Irish who never asked them to. If this consists a breach of civility - well then, I'm sure that depicting Asylum Seekers, some of whom are my friends, as Scroungers more than does this also.

People can have racist, socially conservative, right wing views largely because they live in bubbles. They put on a wise of the world, tough nut act but in reality they are often extremely sheltered, or inherent the views of those that are. They generally also want the freedom to be bad people(racists) without being called bad people(racists), amongst other things.

In reality there is strong degree of racism inherent to our system, and the appeal system. Repeat appeals are not somehow cheating the system, or rather the flaw in the system isn't the allowing of appeals but rather racist preconceptions of Asylum Seekers as thieves and scammers that result in their appeals being denied. For the inexperienced in these matters, accusing the system of being racist may sound like a bold claim, but it really isn't. I don't expect most people to understand racism and oppression theory, but if you look at the case of Roma immigrants the racism becomes extremely apparent - often denied the right to claim welfare or work due to legislation, constantly mistreated by the authorities...

The problem in the case of the Roma is that it's difficult for them to prove habitual residence. A similar "technical" problem is mirrored with the Asylum process in that they demand documents from their country of origin. Many of them come from countries like Somalia with no set government. It might not "sound" like a racist policy but when you think of the implications, it is. This is how racist policy has been written for decades - there always needs to be an element of plausible deniability. What you need to look at is who it's affecting and how.

Deportation is a deeply inhumane procedure that often ends with the person dead in a country they didn't even originate from. It is utterly frightening - often, the authorities will come in the small hours of the morning, to extract the Asylum Seeker, using physical force, with no regard for theie health or wellbeing.

Of course from the point of view of a privileged, socially unconscious, white Irish man the system looks like it's "working". Actually spend some time amongst these people and you see it isn't. You get to hear their stories. You hear of how the children they had when they are over here are the only thing that's kept them going in these repressive systems. You hear about the utter lack of freedom, their demeaning treatment, the mental health issues that arise of a result of an institutionalised life.

I have no doubt in my mind that the same people defending Direct Provision and the like would have defended the Magdalene laundries.

The simple fact is that the people rallying against Asylum Seekers here for the most part lead sheltered lives and have not seen first hand how these people live. You are not educated, you are not enlightened. Because of your immense white(and most likely male and heterosexual/cisgender, thus making you blind to the issues faced by women and LGBTs in some of these nations) entitlement you do not like to be told you are wrong or that people from other cultures know better even about their own situation. But the fact is there is a division in reality here between what people are saying and what I have experienced working with these people. There's a convenient lie that makes it comfortable for conservatives and racists to sleep at night, and there's the lived reality of the likes of Asylum Seekers and Roma in this country.

mollymosfet · 06-01-2015 4:50am

Honestysucks wrote: »

I totally agree with tolerant from cork.They do not have to spend every night there.I had a b/f who was in direct provision and he would be away at mine for 3-4 days at a time without returning.

i've seen this person posting this around. in truth, they have sign in sheets. they may have abolished those more recently after protests, but i haven't asked. there may have been individual cases or periods of time where it was more lenient, but for the most part this doesn't hold true for direct provision centres.

Also, for reference, I was part of the protest but ultimately I ended up volunteering as a Nanny/Childrens entertainer for the kids of the centre. I've been there about a dozen times over the last few months. I have friends who've been going there much longer. The characterisation of the Asylum Seekers as chancers is pure racism defended by a theoretical knowledge of how the appeal system works. There's a problem also when accusations of racism become a more weighty problem than people actually being racist. There is obviously a lot of racist within western culture and we need to unpack that. If you're going to make sweeping generalisations about asylum seekers, frankly, the burden of proof is on you.

jank · 06-01-2015 7:32am

mollymosfet wrote: »

In reality there is strong degree of racism inherent to our system, and the appeal system. Repeat appeals are not somehow cheating the system, or rather the flaw in the system isn't the allowing of appeals but rather racist preconceptions of Asylum Seekers as thieves and scammers that result in their appeals being denied.

People are rejected by telling lies and fibs about their plight, not because they are black or Roma. If you can prove this systematic racism in the system by all means fire away.

The reason there is a preconception that asylum seekers are scammers is the fact that the vast majority of applications are denied, most of which cannot be verified and are indeed lodged by people who are not claiming political asylum but are in fact economic migrants.

The problem in the case of the Roma is that it's difficult for them to prove habitual residence. A similar "technical" problem is mirrored with the Asylum process in that they demand documents from their country of origin.

That's not racism or a technical problem, that is just common sense. Everyone else who claims benefits (including Irish people) from the state need to state a habitual residence, so why the exception for Roma? That is in itself racist

Regarding documents, well I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for documents to prove your case. It has been proved that some 'asylum seekers' dump their travel document upon arrival in a new country as to cover their tracks across the EU. Asking to substantiate your asylum claim in not racist, again its common sense. I suppose we should take peoples word for it?

Deportation is a deeply inhumane procedure that often ends with the person dead in a country they didn't even originate from.

Sorry but going to have to call you up on this and prove it. How many people die after they are deported? Do you have any independent figures?

Of course from the point of view of a privileged, socially unconscious, white Irish man the system looks like it's "working". Actually spend some time amongst these people and you see it isn't. You get to hear their stories. You hear of how the children they had when they are over here are the only thing that's kept them going in these repressive systems. You hear about the utter lack of freedom, their demeaning treatment, the mental health issues that arise of a result of an institutionalised life.

The system is working to an extent but is riddled with legal loopholes and appeals. I already mentioned that the system is back to front. People in war zones who are vulnerable should be singled out and repatriated to Ireland while everyone else who show up unannounced will be denied. Again, if the system was so 'repressive' then why stay?

I have no doubt in my mind that the same people defending Direct Provision and the like would have defended the Magdalene laundries.

Wow, you are using every emotional blackmailing trick in the book aren't you. Yet nothing to substantiate any claim.

The simple fact is that the people rallying against Asylum Seekers here for the most part lead sheltered lives and have not seen first hand how these people live. You are not educated, you are not enlightened. Because of your immense white(and most likely male and heterosexual/cisgender, thus making you blind to the issues faced by women and LGBTs in some of these nations) entitlement you do not like to be told you are wrong or that people from other cultures know better even about their own situation. But the fact is there is a division in reality here between what people are saying and what I have experienced working with these people.

So you pontificate from the hills about racism and white privilege/entitlement (this american term does not even apply to Ireland, been reading some blogs have we?) and in one feel swoop stereotype all the white males in Ireland because they may share a different opinion than you regarding asylum seekers, yet you call them/us racist. Oh the irony.
On a personal note I am educated and have been to many third world countries and have seen first hand on how people live and it makes me more sure that the crocodile tears from post like yours is a farce. Sorry, but people staying in direct provision may not be ideal but from the living conditions I have seen and endured myself in 3rd world countries they are infinitely better.

TLDR, your post is as racist and angry as they come and I would question your influences and the methods of communicating your views. You strike me as a very angry person who wants to perpetuate this 'white guilt' ethos into Ireland as some excuse to give asylum seekers a free pass.

mollymosfet · 06-01-2015 6:22pm

jank you have literally no understanding of the concept of institutionalised racism so I think you need to stop.

mollymosfet · 06-01-2015 8:42pm

That's not trolling. From his post, he clearly doesn't understand the idea that most cultures in general have a degree of ingrained racism.

AlekSmart · 06-01-2015 9:41pm

mollymosfet wrote: »

That's not trolling. From his post, he clearly doesn't understand the idea that most cultures in general have a degree of ingrained racism.

I rather think that his understanding may well be somewhat more refined that you may think....

Mollymofset: Of course from the point of view of a privileged, socially unconscious, white Irish man the system looks like it's "working". Actually spend some time amongst these people and you see it isn't. You get to hear their stories. You hear of how the children they had when they are over here are the only thing that's kept them going in these repressive systems. You hear about the utter lack of freedom, their demeaning treatment, the mental health issues that arise of a result of an institutionalised life.

Racism can indeed be ingrained,and deeply so......I'm sure that my "socially unconsious white Irish male" accquaintences and friends will join me in thanking you for this revelation.

Like Mollyfeset,I too have listened over the years to such stories,some of which have been accurate,but a significant number remain as yet unproven,with many others collapsing entirely when exposed to critical scrutiny...repressive as this scrutiny may initially appear,it does represent an aspect of human nature which transcends race,religion or gender.

I have no doubt in my mind that the same people defending Direct Provision and the like would have defended the Magdalene laundries.

I have always found "Doubt" to be a healthy aspect of one's emotional and intellectual development,so I'm afraid I must confess to having great doubts about making ANY such such correlation.

The simple fact is that the people rallying against Asylum Seekers here for the most part lead sheltered lives and have not seen first hand how these people live.

One associated aspect of life's learning curve for me,has been accepting that I KNOW almost nothing about the nature of how other poster's lives are lived or what they have seen first-hand.

You are not educated, you are not enlightened. Because of your immense white(and most likely male and heterosexual/cisgender, thus making you blind to the issues faced by women and LGBTs in some of these nations) entitlement you do not like to be told you are wrong or that people from other cultures know better even about their own situation.

I'm not certain that one response could could even begin to disassemble the above paragraph...it is,for me,a Triumph of moral superiority,revealing a sense of pure entltlement far far beyond that which the targeted group could ever contemplate themselves....a truly incredible expression of crusading righteousness perhaps ?

But the fact is there is a division in reality here between what people are saying and what I have experienced working with these people. There's a convenient lie that makes it comfortable for conservatives and racists to sleep at night, and there's the lived reality of the likes of Asylum Seekers and Roma in this country.

One certain point of agreement for sure......the division of reality.

conorh91 · 06-01-2015 9:53pm

mollymosfet wrote: »

A similar "technical" problem is mirrored with the Asylum process in that they demand documents from their country of origin.

For the inexperienced in these matters, accusing the system of being racist may sound like a bold claim, but it really isn't.

In light of your claims, I suggest you are the one who is inexperienced.

Absence of documentation may be taken into account, but deciding bodies do not refuse applications/ appeals based on the absence or lack of documentary evidence.

Deciding bodies will often take into account the absence of any corroberative evidence whatever (including country-of-origin information on file, witness testimony, personal documents, etc), but they do allow applications and appeals in the absence of this evidence.

They are entitled to take into account the overal credibility of the applicant. Are you suggesting they should not? Are you suggesting that every applicant making strange, incredible claims should be presumed to be telling the truth?

That's the only conclusion I can arrive at.

That's why I think it is you who is inexperienced or naive.

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

Comments