Immigration - Solutions?

Ryvita

I watched this documentary last night on Channel Four:

Dispatches - Keep them out

It got me thinking on what the best way to deal with Asylum seekers would be for our own country? The main thing that struck me from the Dispatches documentary was the complete lack of knowledge and understanding these people had about Asylum Seekers.

I really think the government/Media should start a campaign to educate people about Asylum Seekers and immigration policy in our country as well as giving the public an insight into who these people are and where they are coming from.

I believe we live in a privileged society and that it is our responsibility to help people who are less well off than ourselves.

I was just wondering what suggestions people had about this issue considering the referendum is looming.

Executive Steve

the best way is to ensure that the lag between their arrival and the point at which they become net contributors to the irish economy is kept as small as possible.

dathi1

I think we should have the same system as Malaysia and Singapore. Anyone entering illegally will be deported immediately and or jailed. Anyone who wishes to apply for asylum from their host country is welcome to do so. Anyone who wants to work here can apply for work permit subject to the necessary criteria.
All this talk about lag times, special rights, free legal aid, 100,000 euro deportation flights etc...would be history.

Ryvita

Originally posted by dathi1
I think we should have the same system as Malaysia and Singapore. Anyone entering illegally will be deported immediately and or jailed. Anyone who wishes to apply for asylum from their host country is welcome to do so. Anyone who wants to work here can apply for work permit subject to the necessary criteria.
All this talk about lag times, special rights, free legal aid, 100,000 euro deportation flights etc...would be history.

If someone is under threat of death in their own country their only option may be to enter our country illegally. Is it right for them to deport them immediately and say it's not our problem. I think we need an alternative.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
Anyone who wishes to apply for asylum from their host country is welcome to do so.

Because people who actually have valid asylum claims generally have no problem sending applications across the border of the nation that they fear for their life in.....

Why don't we just refuse them point blank, or shoot them? That would solve the problem too, and be just about as useful to them.

jc

Imposter

Originally posted by Ryvita
If someone is under threat of death in their own country their only option may be to enter our country illegally. Is it right for them to deport them immediately and say it's not our problem. I think we need an alternative.

They are meant to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Due to Irelands geographical position it's quite likely that this rule has been ignored. In saying that Ireland should take their fair share of asylum seekers but these should in almost all cases not have applyed for asylum in Ireland. Or am I missing something with the current regulations?

dathi1

Why don't we just refuse them point blank, or shoot them? That would solve the problem too, and be just about as useful to them.

I think that would be a bit over the top:) ....again I'm going by other countries example. Australia anyone?

dathi1

If someone is under threat of death in their own country their only option may be to enter our country illegally.

That's a fair point and yes I concede that in exceptional circumstances this has to be considered. Unfortunately since the post economic boom late 90's economic asylum shopping is the norm and it smothers completely the numbers of genuine refugees. As your economy grows for some reason more people under the "threat of death" seem to want to move from other safe countries to yours.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
again I'm going by other countries example. Australia anyone?

Yes, but if some countries have an example of "don't let anyone in for any reason, at all", would you accept that as a policy worth adopting? It solves their problems with asylum seekers, but its not particularly useful when it comes to the asylum seeker's point of view.

Thats what I was driving at....just because some other country has a policy which is effectively a closed-door (e.g. the "apply from your own country" one) doesn't mean we should take it as a good way to do things.

Australia, incidentally, would fit my bill of the wrong way to do things as well.

jc

spongebob

We have other problems too.

We have 10's of thousands of legal immigrants who will spend maybe 25% (assume 10-12 years) of their economically active lives here, legally, paying PRSI. We will always have LEGAL immigrants, this is a new issue for Ireland but it needs to be addressed.

There is no mechanism for them to collect their pension (when it arises) in their own countries from our pension fund. That needs sorting.

I see doctors, nurses and programmers, high contributors to teh tax take and prsi take who will get nothing when they leave. I also see meat factory workers and hotel workers for whom the Irish contributions will form a large part of their pensions, if they can get them . The Irish economy cannot function without targeted immigration now ....and never will in future.

Needs sorting. The whole immigration situation needs joined up thinking. We will never get that from a myopic reactionary like Mc Dowell unfortuantely.

The false asylum seekers are creating a cloud which does not benefit the genuine asylum seekers at all and which distorts our reality when it comes to treating contributors to our economic wellbeing, INVITED if not Begged to work here may I add.

M

bonkey

Originally posted by Muck
There is no mechanism for them to collect their pension (when it arises) in their own countries from our pension fund. That needs sorting.

Never realised that. Damn right it needs sorting.

I'm pretty sure that when I leave Switzerland, my state-pension contributions here can be taken with me, or left in Switzerland to become the basis for a Swiss pension when I retire.

jc

Ryvita

Originally posted by dathi1
Unfortunately since the post economic boom late 90's economic asylum shopping is the norm and it smothers completely the numbers of genuine refugees. As your economy grows for some reason more people under the "threat of death" seem to want to move from other safe countries to yours.

See this my problem with the whole debate. Who are these economic refugees and why are they doing what they are doing? What are genuine refugees? How do you prove they are genuine?

I think that in discussing this people forget that we are talking about human beings and for whatever reason "genuine" or other they are fleeing their own country. Even if it is for economic reasons, what's so bad about that? Shouldn't we still be willing to help or is it only if they are near death?

Immigration. - As long as the person/family etc can contribute to the State, in some form of Job, then yes they're welcome in my eyes. Those that have nothing to contribute can move on to somewhere else.

Asylum seekers - Case by case examination. However, same conditions for immigrants should be applied here. (some exceptions to be determined later)

Illegal Immigrants. - kicked out. Immediately.

false asylum seekers - Fined. AND kicked out.

Sorry, but I'll reserve my sympathies for those that deserve them. Those that I determine.

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
Immigration. - As long as the person/family etc can contribute to the State, in some form of Job, then yes they're welcome in my eyes. Those that have nothing to contribute can move on to somewhere else.

Asylum seekers - Case by case examination. However, same conditions for immigrants should be applied here. (some exceptions to be determined later)

Illegal Immigrants. - kicked out. Immediately.

false asylum seekers - Fined. AND kicked out.

Sorry, but I'll reserve my sympathies for those that deserve them. Those that I determine.

And if the illegal immigrant faces death when he is deported home? Not your problem?

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
Sorry, but I'll reserve my sympathies for those that deserve them. Those that I determine.

So who deserves your sympathy? I'm not trying to be provocative I'm just interested to know who you feel deserves help?

IronMan

As was stated above, an asylum seeker is meant to seek refuge in the first safe country they come across. This legislation is ignored in large parts of Europe, e.g someone who is refused asylum status in France, can in many cases just get the boat to England and apply for the same status there. There can be no doubt that many of the migrants that enter the country are here for the economic benefits, many just in the short term. Again as stated above this country needs these people, they do the kinds of work that many Irish people just wont do. Many come here on work visa's and many are exploited by their employeers. This needs to be addressed urgently so that these people can be treated fairly and above board.

However we also have groups coming here with the sole intention of milking our social welfare system. They exploit loopholes in our legislation and see Ireland as a soft target. Many of them are involved in varying levels of crime and fraud, and are here almost solely for economic gain. They cloud the genuine asylum seeker, and the workers that we need to keep this country ticking over.

It's obvious that we do need changes to our laws and social welfare system, to make this place less appealing to those who come here to exploit these systems. However on the other hand we need to treat those that come here with legitimate work visa's with greater respect and to offer them the same rights as those that have been born, raised and work here.

And if the illegal immigrant faces death when he is deported home? Not your problem?

They would fall under the asylum seekers, don't u think?

So who deserves your sympathy? I'm not trying to be provocative I'm just interested to know who you feel deserves help?

Honestly, it depends on the circumstances. I don't like broad commitments of sympathy. For example, I donate to children charities, however i have very few sympathies for the homeless. There are some exceptions, but I prefer to base my sympathies on an individual basis.

Ryvita

Originally posted by IronMan
It's obvious that we do need changes to our laws and social welfare system, to make this place less appealing to those who come here to exploit these systems. However on the other hand we need to treat those that come here with legitimate work visa's with greater respect and to offer them the same rights as those that have been born, raised and work here.

I agree with what your saying. But by changing the system to ensure that people who will exploit it are stopped we may effect people who are genuinely in need.

Also about these people who exploit our social welfare system. Has this been documented? I'm not saying it's not happening, but how extensive is it? It's some people's fear of this that is provoking racist feeling in this country.

We need to see and be shown what the reality is.

Ryvita

Originally posted by klaz
They would fall under the asylum seekers, don't u think?

As mentioned earlier a person who is in fear of their lives may not have time to make a formal application and could very easily fall under the umbrella of "illegal immigrant".

Originally posted by klaz
Honestly, it depends on the circumstances. I don't like broad commitments of sympathy. For example, I donate to children charities, however i have very few sympathies for the homeless. There are some exceptions, but I prefer to base my sympathies on an individual basis.

I'll leave your issues about the homeless to one side ... as it's not relevant ... but really would love to know what the issue is there.

With regard to basing your sympathies on an individual basis - we need to bring in laws that work. Unfortunately it's hard to take every possibility.individual into account when doing that.

bonkey

Originally posted by Ryvita
As mentioned earlier a person who is in fear of their lives may not have time to make a formal application and could very easily fall under the umbrella of "illegal immigrant".

I think you may have misinterpreted what was written.

In most nations - including Ireland at the moment - you apply for asylum immediately on reaching the country, and it should be the first "safe" country you have arrived on since leaving your homeland.

What you are highlighting, I think, is the problem that I pointed out may exist with the policy in Singapore etc. which someone else (daithi?) had suggested as a preferable system to what we have at the moment.

jc

arcadegame2004

I strongly agree with IronMan and Daithi that our current system is being abused. Let me first address the points made by some on this forum about migrants fleeing persecution. If they are genuinely fleeing persecution, and they then arrive in the EU, then they have ALREADY reached safety when they arrive in the FIRST EU state they enter. They have NO need to continue on out of that first EU state through 6 or 7 perfectly democratic, safe countries to arrive in Ireland. There is NO legal right for them to do this. Nor should there be, since the Irish taxpayer does not need to have this burden placed on its shoulders, especially when the asylum-seekers ESSENTIAL needs are already being taken care of in that other EU state.

For example, let us suppose a Chechen refugee is fleeing persecution in Russia. Suppose the first EU state they arrive in is Greece. Now, under the Dublin Convention 1981, he/she must claim asylum in Greece and stay put. Suppose and African migrant illegally arrives in Spain - the first country in the EU they arrive in. Let he/she stay put in Spain and claim asylum there. Or if it is Italy let them stay put and claim asylum there. The Irish taxpayer is NOT putting anyone's life in danger by insisting on this. Simply send asylum-seekers in Ireland back to the first EU state they entered. There. Whose life does that put in danger? Why should I pay money to people when the taxpayers of Italy or Spain are legally required to deal with this individual? We have more pressing priorities and we can meet any need for economic-migrants to fill skill shortages from the citizens of new EU member-states or by work-permits. It is stupid to suggest we should meet these needs from asylum-seekers when you consider that legally they are not allowed to work and are extremely unlikely to be found genuine, based on the fact that 66% of them come from the safe countries of Nigeria and Romania. Let someone from outside the EU who wants to come here to work apply for a work-permit, or for the new Green Card that Minister McDowell is reportedly planning.

As far as I am concerned the term "asylum" is one of the most abused terms in our world today. It should mean "safehaven from persecution". It should NOT mean "go to the country with the most generous welfare system and pretend to be fleeing persecution in order to stay there". Don't tell me that Ireland is the first safehaven a genuine refugee enters. You know you dont believe that yourself.

What I found strange and unusual was the fact that a lady was interviewd on the RTÉ nine o clock news last weekend.
She was an asylum seeker from the czech Republic and a resident of the Mosney facility and was all distraught at the fact that she was going to be evicted from the first of may as her country was a member of the E.U now...
I saw similar reports on BBC news last week end regarding assylum seekers having to leave sheltered accomadation there because their country was joining the E.U

The lady in mosney was be moaning the fact that she now had to find a job:rolleyes:
If she's progressive enough she will find a job, now that she's entitled to work.
On another note the employment agency that I'm involved with recently held a job fair in Poland, we were mobbed with inquiries, for people we badly need.
Seven of these came in last week and are about to start work at rates comfortably above the minimum wage.These are jobs that we can't seem to get local people to fill.
If I mention that I notice INTEL are hiring again, this post will look like a newsletter

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Let me first address the points made by some on this forum about migrants fleeing persecution.

You know...when you start a big long explanation by mixing up the terms, it entirely undermines any point you might be able to make.

For what is undoubtedly not the last time...

Asylum seekers are fleeing persecution.
Migrants are not.

If they are genuinely fleeing persecution, and they then arrive in the EU, then they have ALREADY reached safety when they arrive in the FIRST EU state they enter. They have NO need to continue on out of that first EU state through 6 or 7 perfectly democratic, safe countries to arrive in Ireland. There is NO legal right for them to do this. Nor should there be, since the Irish taxpayer does not need to have this burden placed on its shoulders, especially when the asylum-seekers ESSENTIAL needs are already being taken care of in that other EU state.

All of which applies to - and only to - asylum seekers, not migrants.

Simply send asylum-seekers in Ireland back to the first EU state they entered. There.

I can see it now...

"Excuse me sir, but you have no right to stay in this country. Where was your first port of call?"

"Ireland"

"Ho ho. Very amusing sir. Surely it wasn't. We believe you must have stopped somewhere else. Now please sir, where was your first safe port of call"

"Ireland".

"Ah - we've decided you're a liar, so we're randomly going to pick... ummm.... Greece and send you there. Oh, unfortunately because you'll now be entering Greece from Ireland, and there is no actual proof you came to here from there, they won't be obliged to offer you asylum once you get there either.

Best thing is if you just go back home to those who were persecuting you, sir, forget the whole thing, and pray to whatever god you have that you don't get killed for whatever reason caused you to run away originally".

As far as I am concerned the term "asylum" is one of the most abused terms in our world today.

"Migrant" would rank up there with it...what with so many people unable to make the distinction and all.

Don't tell me that Ireland is the first safehaven a genuine refugee enters. You know you dont believe that yourself.

You know that there is also a not uncommon practice amongst asylum seekers to rip up their passport (at least over here in Switzerland), so that not only is there no way of knowing where they came though, you can't even know for sure where their point of origin was to send them anywhere.

Your entire solution is based on a false premise - that those who seek asylum will co-operate with those refusing them asylum in being sent to another country to seek asylum there instead, and also on a faulty premise - that the country we send them to will accept that they came from there without proof, and will agree to take them coming from another safe haven like Ireland.

Sorry, but if it was that simple, don't you think it would be already solved??:?

jc

arcadegame2004

Earthman your point about the irony of the asylum-seeking Czech woman being annoyed at having to work is well made and points to the fact that the vast majority of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland are really benefit tourists with no intention of working. At least now that her's and other countries are now in the EU will ensure that people wanting to have enough money to live on in this country will have to work for their pay instead of sponging off the State.

Bonkey, I do not share your fatalistic view that it is impossible to properly implement the Dublin Convention. All asylum-seekers claiming asylum in Italy, Spain, France, or Greece, after arriving by sea, should be held in comfortable reception-centres to prevent them moving to another EU State. That would prevent them asylum-shopping in other EU states. They would then be deported if found to be illegal-immigrants. I see you again make reference to the claims that some of these people would be executed if returned to their former countries. We know that 33% of asylum-seekers in Ireland are from Romania. Are you suggesting they will be executed or tortured if returned to Romania? Come on now....

In case an asylum-seeker somehow escaped the supervision of the authorities in one EU-member state, I propose that apart from my reception-centre proposal, I would also compulsorily finger-print all asylum seekers in reception-centres in whatever member state they have arrived, firstly or later. There fingerprints would then be inputted into the new Eurodac database which has now been created to help combat multiple asylum-claims. In that way, via comparison with the fingerprints already inputted in the Eurodac database, we could discover which asylum-seekers had already applied for asylum in another EU state. These individuals could then be deported back to the first EU state they entered, rather than to their countries of origin. There, Bonkey, does this not resolve the concerns you expressed?

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Earthman your point about the irony of the asylum-seeking Czech woman being annoyed at having to work is well made and points to the fact that the vast majority of asylum-seekers coming to Ireland are really benefit tourists with no intention of working.

Wow. From the comments of one women you can draw conclusions about "the vast majority of asylum-seekers." You are good.

MrP

arcadegame2004

Well Mr.Pudding, what other reason can you give for an asylum-seeker crossing 6 or 7 democratic Western states in order to arrive in Ireland, especially when you consider they are not allowed to work here?

MrPudding

I was not attempting to explain anything. I was simply pointing out that based on the comments of one woman you were passing judgement on thousands of people.

I think it is fairly safe to say this is a massively unfair generalisation. I have met several Irish people who did not want to work. Do I get to say all Irish people don’t want to work? I’m Irish, I want to work so that can’t be right. I could come up with hundreds of these from personal experience but I will leave you with this one. I met a couple of anti immigration people who were racist. Does that make all people opposed to immigration racist?

MrP

Originally posted by MrPudding

I think it is fairly safe to say this is a massively unfair generalisation.

MrP

Probably correct, but it might be fair also to say that it is indicative of a trend or a problem among a section of these migrants.
A non E.U citizen looks to be showing the signs of economic migrancy rather than asylum seeking migrancy when they cross several E.U borders to come here rather than apply for the asylum at their first port of call within the E.U

MrPudding

Originally posted by Earthman
Probably correct, but it might be fair also to say that it is indicative of a trend or a problem among a section of these migrants.
A non E.U citizen looks to be showing the signs of economic migrancy rather than asylum seeking migrancy when they cross several E.U borders to come here rather than apply for the asylum at their first port of call within the E.U

I'm sorry, I didn't really do much book learnin so help me out here. When did 1 instance of something become indicative of a trend? Am I missing something here? How many babies were born in Dublin last year? I should know this, I think arcade has mentioned it a few times. I will use the figure of 20 000 (I have a suspicion that that might be the figure for one hospital but it's not important.) One of them was my son. We called him Loïc. It is likely that he was the only child thus named. If he was the only child given this name does that make him indicative of a trend for people to call their kids Loïc?

MrP

arcadegame2004

Right. Well what is certainly indicative of a trend of economic-migration is the fact that large-scale migration of non-nationals to the Republic of Ireland since independence did not start until the late-1990's which happens to coincide with the Celtic Tiger years of rapid economic growth. The fact that a trickle of people became a flood is hardly a mere coincidence. They certainly didn't come all this way simply for the weather, or to admire the scenary.

vorbis

arcadegame2004, its hardly a flood in relation to other countries economic migrants numbers. Its a bit ironic, Ireland sends millions off to other countries to work and yet whinge incessantly when a couple of thousand come here.