Immigration - Solutions?

arcadegame2004

"A restrictive immigration policy where the scrutinisation of asylum-seekers cannot truly reflect the very real deprivation and, oft-times, real danger of death on deportation is also racist in its implementation. " (DermotL)

What danger of death? Romanians are NOT being put to death by the Romanian Government!!!! Nigeria is a democracy and if someone wants to escape the Sharia law in the Northern states they can go to the Christian south. No-one believes the sob-stories that the 66% of asylum-seekers arriving annually in the Republic of Ireland who come from Romania or Nigeria face death if returned to their countries. Romania is an EU-candidate state FFS! I am tired of these misleading claims being made.

"It is difficult for an adult asylum-seeker to "sponge" on €19, yes €19 a week. Tell me, is it worth leaving your home, your hometown, your home country, your friends, your extended family and all your social connections to "sponge" in this manner?" (DermotL)

The sponging takes the forum primarily of the free local authority housing, paid for by the Irish taxpayer. That CERTAINLY is a major incentive to come here. Irish people have to wait years but not these people. There is also sponging in the form of Nigerian gangs using multiple IDs to acquire SW payments multiple times. This has been reported on in the press and DOES happen. The US Government has suspended the issuing of work-permits to Nigeria because of the abuse of the system by criminal gangs who copy and forge work-permits.

"Given the very real social and economic deprivation, far more impoverished in the vast majority of cases than many of us can truly contemplate, and far more dangerous in some cases than many of us ever want to imagine, please conceive of those seeking asylum not as immigrants and foreigners, but as fellow global citizens. Almost all of these people come here for a very good reason, and that reason is almost always to seek the opportunity to work and learn and to find a new home for themselves."
(DermotL)

They are already in a safe Western prosperous country long before they arrive in Ireland. If they want to come here let them apply for a work-permit. 150,000 people came to the Republic of Ireland that way. Let them try the legal route. We will encourage a "brain-drain" from the Third World if we let just anyone come here. And that can only damage the Third World, as it has damaged the Phillipines by causing a drain of nurses from there and a depletion of nurses in the Filipino health-service. this is damaging the Third World, not helping it.

"
There is no flood of asylum-seekers into Ireland.

Please see the attached file to see how the levels of those seeking asylum has actually dropped" (DermotL)

Many illegal immigrants bypass the asylum-system altogether and just come here pregnant knowing that there child will then have Irish citizenship and hopefully the parent will then have her EU passport.

"the benefits of multiculturalism are already taking hold - see today's Irishwoman's Diary in the Irish Times for just a taste of how much those from different cultural bakgrounds add to our society." (DermotL)

Immigrants, like any society in the word generally, are a mixture of the good and the bad. You cannot classify all as being good. Nor can you classify all as being bad. Unfortunately you are portraying all of them as good, in spite of the clear evidence of fraud by Nigerian gangs engaged in multiple-ID scams. This has been frequently reported upon by the Irish media. The current system allows these people to gain a foothold here simply by bringing in their pregnant girlfriends.

"Denying children equal rights to be raised as Irish citizens, as many parents wish their children to be raised in order for the kids themselves to have a better chance for the future in an unequal world, may sometimes not be racist in its intent but it isn't colour-blind in its implementation." (DermotL)

NO other European country allows automatic citizenship solely on the basis of birth. Ireland is simply bringing its citizenship laws into line with the rest of Europe. So you can only call this proposal racist if you also consider the rest of Europe to be racist. Do you? Then you must also believe the Republic of Ireland was racist pre-1998. Do you believe that too? I do not. I do not hate other races as a racist would. I just don't think you can compare the Irish economy to the American economy with respect to capacity to pay for all these people. May I add that Irish people who emigrated to the US and Britain in the 19th century were fleeing a famine, unlike Nigerian and Romanians who leave democratic, if poor, nations.

These immigrants are already in the West LONG before they arrive here. Why must they come here? There must be something making us more attractive than other EU states. It must be our citizenship law and overgenerous welfare-state that pays the rent for local authority housing for asylum-seekers. The more that come, the greater the expense to the Irish taxpayer at a time of huge pressure on the Health-Service. We do not want or need further expense. It took the UK decades for the non-national population there to reach 7% yet it has already happened here in 6 years. It is happening too fast. Look at the Muslim Fundamentalism that is strong among many British immigrant Muslims. We do not want a problem like that here.
I will vote "Yes" and your attitude of labelling "Yes" supporters as "racists" will be counterproductive.

arcadegame2004

The ICCL do some good work. Unfortunatley, on the immigration issue, they, just like the Irish Refugee Council, often condemn attempts to restrict illegal-immigration into this country. I consider them part of the politically-correct Irish Left when it comes to immigration. The term "refugee" is made a mockery of when you can have people coming from any non-EU state in the world and then proclaim them as "refugees" just by them claiming asylum. A Romanian is NOT a refugee. His/Her country is democratic. Same for Nigerians.

DermotL

I apologise if I seem to be upsetting the rules on here but will reply to some of your points anyway.

1. First off, I have met many asylum-seekers who face violence on return to their home country. Many will not and there are no hard facts on this issue. Sharia is extremely prevalent in much of Nigeria (not simply a North/South divide) and it is not a lie to say that many of the young Nigerian girls, for example, who have come to Ireland WILL face genital mutilation if deported.

Many other asylum seekers have left behind war-torn countries, ethnic strife or extreme poverty that is often little known of. Roma gypsies are subject to extraordinary amounts of abuse in all kinds of ways in Romania, yet they're very commonly held up as examples of this so-called "welfare tourism." Those who work with migrant communities are well aware of the very real trauma many asylum-seekers have gone through in their former homes. It is IMHO unfair to refuse someone asylum simply because they do not face immediate death in their home country. What about extreme poverty, severe political, ethnic or religious discimination?

2. Points about gangsters in Nigeria and elsewhere are taken, these greedy businessmen are responsible for some of the gruesome deaths we have seen in recent years and are often accused of lying to and exploiting people. As I have already pointed out it is the absolute fault of government not to provide housing, and a very easy con for them to scapegoat asylum-seekers to hide their own incompetence

3. Not totally sure on your arguments for work permits, I wonder did you see the expose on the work permit system screened by Primetime a fortnight or so ago? It is clearly a massively-flawed system open to horrendous abuse by employers.

4. "Many illegal immigrants bypass the asylum-system altogether and just come here pregnant knowing that there child will then have Irish citizenship and hopefully the parent will then have her EU passport." A recent High Court ruling has nullified this particular issue, I would have thought?

5. There certainly are bad and good people and I don't for a second think every immigrant is a good person. I think like all people the majority are decent, ordinary people. To label asylum-seekers as those who seek a "foothold here simply by bringing in their pregnant girlfriends" is misleading - and besides, what's wrong with a foothold that allows a person to climb away from socio-economic deprevation?

6. As I about to be kicked out of this building I'll reply to your next point by citing the ICCL Briefing on the referendum.

"Ireland has always, had since the foundation of the state in 1921, a 'jus solis' approach to citizenship. This means that citizenship is acquired through birth in the country, not only through the bloodline (jus sanguinis). These citizenship laws were enshrined in legislation in the 1935 Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act and then again in the 1956 Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act. Article 2 of the Constitution, which recognizes that all those born in Ireland are entitled to be part of the nation, has not and cannot have created a “loophole” or “anomaly” in citizenship laws, as citizenship has always been acquired by being born in Ireland since 1921. On 3 June 1998, the Irish people voted simply to recognize the right of all born in Ireland to be part of the nation, in the Constitution.

These citizenship laws are predominant in common law countries. Our “jus solis” legal heritage, is both traditional for common law countries, such as Ireland, but also the traditional Republican means of acquiring citizenship. For example, it is the same system as many (over 40 ) other countries operate: including the US , Canada , New Zealand , India, Pakistan, most of Latin American and the Caribbean. Most of the Caribbean and Latin/South American countries that operate jus solis also provide for that in their constitution. These include but are not limited to: Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru. There are also many African countries that follow jus solis (eg Gambia, Guyana, Central African Republic) where citizenship entitlement is also set out in the Constitution

Even in Europe, where almost all other countries, except the UK are civil law systems, everyone born in France to non-nationals, acquires French citizenship, when they turn 18, if they reside in France at the time.

Our European Union membership has no relevance to our citizenship laws. There has been five referendum related to our EU membership, and never once has there been a question of our citizenship laws. Indeed although it has been 20 years since the Mrs. Thatcher in the UK modified their citizenship law, so that Ireland has remained the sole EU country with jus solis citizenship laws, we have never been asked by Europe to modify our laws. Indeed on the same day, that the Irish people voted overwhelmingly to provide for the birthright to part of the Irish Nation for all born in Ireland, the Irish people also permitted ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty. If there had been any question of a “loophole” between EU membership and our laws, both constitutional referendums would not have been passed together on the same day."

Finally, Irish people emigrated in years before and after 1846-1851. The Famine had a considerable impact on the Irish population but so did massive economic downturns in the 1950's and 1980's, for example. Many of the Irish people emigrated "illegally" yet they, like those seeking a better life here and now, are deserving of a foothold in life aswell.

Apologies for being so brief with my points - it's a time constraint.

Meh

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The sponging takes the forum primarily of the free local authority housing, paid for by the Irish taxpayer.

Asylum-seekers do not get local authority housing, free or otherwise. They are accommodated in regional asylum centres.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/seeking_asylum/direct_provision.html
As a newly arrived asylum seeker, you are initially accommodated in a short-stay reception centre in the Dublin area for a period of assessment. You will then be assigned accommodation at a regional centre.

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/seeking_asylum/rights_and_obligations_of_asylum_seekers_in_ireland.html
The Reception and Integration Agency will provide you with accommodation (on a full board basis) in one of their accommodation centres while your application for asylum is being processed. Asylum seekers are not entitled to receive a rent supplement from the health board.

We will encourage a "brain-drain" from the Third World if we let just anyone come here. And that can only damage the Third World, as it has damaged the Phillipines by causing a drain of nurses from there and a depletion of nurses in the Filipino health-service. this is damaging the Third World, not helping it.

Highly debatable. What about the new skills these workers bring back to their home countries when they return? What about the money they send home to their families (a sum of money greater than all the development aid given by the developed world)?

arcadegame2004

The "regional centre" may well be a local-authority house though.

arcadegame2004

DermotL, I note that NONE of the countries you refer to that allow citizenship on the sole basis of birth are in the EU. This IS relevant because there is freedom of movement across national-boundaries in the EU, unlike movement between Ireland and the said-countries. And anyway, how many of the countries you mention that allow citizenship solely on the basis of birth have that fact enshrined into their Constitutions? An evolving problem like illegal-immigration should be open to being addressed by national parliamentary legislation and NOT strait-jacked by a Constitutional requirement of citizenship solely on the basis of birth.

Even if some Roma face discrimination in Romania, and even if some Nigerian women face the risk of genital mutilation back home, that does not mean they face danger if returned to a PREVIOUS EU state of entry. You are wrong to say that Sharia in Nigeria is not a North-South issue. The Southern hald of Nigeria is majority Christian in virtually every Southern Nigerian state. The following BBC link shows the Sharia states in Nigeria, all of which are in the Northern half od the country http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2632939.stm#map

Dermot, the reason why asylum-seekers do not get a rent-supplement is because the state PAYS THE RENT for them. I know this to be true. You point on that issue is grossly misleading.

The point you make about Ireland's law on citizenship is also misleading, since we did not experience mass-migration to this state until the mid-1990's. When the circumstance changes, so too should the law be open to change. Yet that is prevented in respect of citizenship-criteria, owing to the births-for-citizenship constitutional amendment in 1998.

arcadegame2004

"You will not be entitled to rent allowance as your accommodation is paid for."


http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/seeking_asylum/direct_provision.html

Yes, paid for by US.

Ryvita

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Meh, you're link confirms some of my suspicions:
It states of asylum-seekers "your accommodation is paid for". So the Irish taxpayer is paying the rent for them. I consider this unfair because Irish people are expected to pay the rent for local-authority housing. BTW I never mentioned buggies or cars.

Irish people are allowed to work!!!

It is costing the Irish taxpayer a fortune. Minister McDowell has stated that the Irish taxpayer is spending 350 million Euro on asylum-seekers.

So what? What better way to spend tax payers money than on people who really need it?

Dept. of Justice figures indicate 1,893 pregnant women claimed asylum last year, equivalent to 58% of female asylum-seekers over the age of 16 arriving here in 2003. Indeed in some months the figure was as high as 65%. Am I the only one who finds this suspicious? I doubt it somehow.

Do you not find it sad that someone has to go to these lengths ... risking their health sometimes by flying late in their pregnancy ... to get to Ireland? You make it sound like these people are out to make a quick buck. There are easier ways of doing it. Is it not more likely that they are coming here to find a safe home?

It doesn't make sense that someone genuinely fleeing persecution would cross 6 or 7 safe EU countries to get here. Why are they doing this? They are already safe when they arrive in Italy, Spain, Greece or Germany. So why come here?

Maybe they are fleeing extreme poverty? Maybe Ireland is their last option? Maybe they have family here? Maybe they speak English? Maybe they think Irealnd would be a nice place to live?

66% of our asylum-seekers come from the safe countries of Romania and Bulgaria. By sending them back we would not be putting their lives in danger. Certainly. they would not be in any danger sent back to a previous EU country where they had claimed asylum.

So we just pass the problem back to other countries? And keep Ireland "Clean"?

Some on this forum ask why it matters that we have a different citizenship-law to other EU states. My response is that it marks Ireland out as a more attractive destination for illegal-immigrants. Meaning that 350 million figure will greatly increase if we do nothing about it. This means less money for schools and hospitals. And I don't think thats in our interests.

So leave the poor stay where they are and lets try and aim towards our own utopia here? It is our responsibility to help those better off than ourselves. Or should we just be saying it's not our problem?

Maybe if we didn't spend so much money on electonic voting which we don't actually need we could put this money towards Schools and hospitals?

To those on this forum preaching the need for skilled workers from abroad I point out we have already allowed 150,000 legal migrant workers into our country via the work-permit system to say nothing of EU migrants. It is hard to believe that out of the 4.5 unemployed of Germany and the 3.5 million unemployed of France and the other millions of EU unemployed we can't find enough skilled-workers to fill job vacancies that Irish people cannot fill.

Nurses? We actually had to change the law to allow the spouses of nurses from countries like the Phillipines to work here so that they'd stay.

Imposter

Originally posted by Ryvita
Do you not find it sad that someone has to go to these lengths ... risking their health sometimes by flying late in their pregnancy ... to get to Ireland? You make it sound like these people are out to make a quick buck. There are easier ways of doing it. Is it not more likely that they are coming here to find a safe home?

These figures are just for asylum seekers. How many more mothers-to-be are economic migrants arriving here heavily pregnant?

Another point that noone seems to have raised is the money that some of these people (possibly asylum seekers but i'd suggest usually economic migrants) pay to criminal gangs in order for them to have passage to Europe. We are talking about serious money here. Money that would have a huge affect on their living standards in their home countries, yet these people save this money just to get a shot at getting to a more prosperous country. Surely this is not asylum seekers but illegal immigrants? Yes maybe they are poor, relative to European standards but the ability to save sometimes almost 1000€ in a few years imo is not poor by world standards.

Ryvita

Originally posted by Imposter

Originally posted by Ryvita
Do you not find it sad that someone has to go to these lengths ... risking their health sometimes by flying late in their pregnancy ... to get to Ireland? You make it sound like these people are out to make a quick buck. There are easier ways of doing it. Is it not more likely that they are coming here to find a safe home?

These figures are just for asylum seekers. How many more mothers-to-be are economic migrants arriving here heavily pregnant?

Another point that noone seems to have raised is the money that some of these people (possibly asylum seekers but i'd suggest usually economic migrants) pay to criminal gangs in order for them to have passage to Europe. We are talking about serious money here. Money that would have a huge affect on their living standards in their home countries, yet these people save this money just to get a shot at getting to a more prosperous country. Surely this is not asylum seekers but illegal immigrants? Yes maybe they are poor, relative to European standards but the ability to save sometimes almost 1000€ in a few years imo is not poor by world standards.

If it's that easy for them to raise money and they could live the "high life" in their own country (let's remember Dublin isn't exactly cheap), why do they do it? If they could have a perfectly happy life at home why do they do it?

Imposter

Originally posted by Ryvita
If it's that easy for them to raise money and they could live the "high life" in their own country (let's remember Dublin isn't exactly cheap), why do they do it? If they could have a perfectly happy life at home why do they do it?

I don't think they'd be living the high life but they'd definitely have a better standard of living. As for why they do it, I presume it's because they presume they'll have a better life here.

I also never said they could have a perfectly happy life in their home countries. They may have a perfectly happy life but its not a given. I would imagine though if they have the ability to earn and save money then it's highly unlikely that they are being persecuted.

To get another thing straight, I've no problem with economic migrants entering any country once they do so legally.

Ryvita

Originally posted by Imposter
I don't think they'd be living the high life but they'd definitely have a better standard of living. As for why they do it, I presume it's because they presume they'll have a better life here.

I also never said they could have a perfectly happy life in their home countries. They may have a perfectly happy life but its not a given. I would imagine though if they have the ability to earn and save money then it's highly unlikely that they are being persecuted.

To get another thing straight, I've no problem with economic migrants entering any country once they do so legally.

So how do we tell the difference between an illegal immigrant who is running from persecution from an "economic migrant"?

Imposter

Originally posted by Ryvita
So how do we tell the difference between an illegal immigrant who is running from persecution from an "economic migrant"?

I don't know. How are current asylum applications judged?

BuffyBot

Do you not find it sad that someone has to go to these lengths ... risking their health sometimes by flying late in their pregnancy ... to get to Ireland?

Do you not think it odd, that with the lack of direct flights from many of these countries to Ireland, they still manage to get to Ireland without stopping first in another EU country?

Sherlock

"quote:

---

It is costing the Irish taxpayer a fortune. Minister McDowell has stated that the Irish taxpayer is spending 350 million Euro on asylum-seekers.

---

So what? What better way to spend tax payers money than on people who really need it?"

So where do we draw the line?. Clearly a country of 4 million people can only do so much and can only take in so many people.Nigeria alone has a population of 120 million.Should we have an open door policy and allow everyone in?.

Ryvita

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Do you not think it odd, that with the lack of direct flights from many of these countries to Ireland, they still manage to get to Ireland without stopping first in another EU country?

No I'd say they are specifically trying to get to Ireland. My point is that I don't blame them.

Ryvita

Originally posted by Sherlock
"quote:

---

It is costing the Irish taxpayer a fortune. Minister McDowell has stated that the Irish taxpayer is spending 350 million Euro on asylum-seekers.

---

So what? What better way to spend tax payers money than on people who really need it?"

So where do we draw the line?. Clearly a country of 4 million people can only do so much and can only take in so many people.Nigeria alone has a population of 120 million.Should we have an open door policy and allow everyone in?.

I didn't say that we should have an open door policy. I think the current system promotes racism. I think it needs to be changed and I think Irish people need to be educated about the realities of the situation.

Someone posted earlier that there should be a quicker turn around time for when people get to this country. I'd agree with that.

This is a huge problem in the world and it's due to the uneven distribution of wealth. I think we should do everything we can to help people in such dire straits and to stop demonising them.

Sherlock

People regularly say they're not in favour of an open door policy but go on to say we shouldn't deport those whose application fails and that we should welcome in anyone who wants to enter the country.
To those who say they don't want an open door policy but support immigration I'd like to ask the question, what should happen to those immigrants whose application fails (around 90%).Should they be allowed to stay in the country anyway?.

Ryvita

Originally posted by Sherlock
People regularly say they're not in favour of an open door policy but go on to say we shouldn't deport those whose application fails and that we should welcome in anyone who wants to enter the country.

Has anyone actually said that on this thread?

To those who say they don't want an open door policy but support immigration I'd like to ask the question, what should happen to those immigrants whose application fails (around 90%).Should they be allowed to stay in the country anyway?.

Out of interest where did you get the 90% figure?

Of course we can't have an "open door policy". What should the criteira for an application failing be? Should the person have an oppurtunity to appeal?

I just think that these people are being treated and viewed like cattle. I think that's sad. I think there has to be a better way to treat these people.

BuffyBot

No I'd say they are specifically trying to get to Ireland. My point is that I don't blame them.

Seems odd then, that when considering fleeing opression and/or torture etc that you would give careful consideration to your destination. Would not the first safe country be enough?

Ryvita

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Seems odd then, that when considering fleeing opression and/or torture etc that you would give careful consideration to your destination. Would not the first safe country be enough?

Maybe they would get kicked out of the first country they get to? Maybe they think Ireland would be the safest option?

What do you suggest we do? Kick them out and say, it's not our problem? I'm sorry but I don't think that's good enough!

arcadegame2004

I think it was Ryvita that suggested that "maybe they think Ireland is a nice place to live" as an argument for letting in these asylum-seekers. Well tough. They are not in what you call "dire straits" when they arrive in the first EU country of entry. So let them stay in the first EU country of entry. My country's taxpayers are not legally obliged to cater for the 80% of the world's population that live in the Third World.

The Third World's problems will only be solved when we in the West start trading fairly with these countries, by removing the massive tariffs on imports from their countries. Encouraging a brain-drain neither helps us or them. It harms them by emptying their countries of skilled-labour needed to bring abour economic growth. It damages us by importing cheap labour that will undercut Irish wages and lose Irish jobs.

Look, as far as I am concerned, they can get their asylum claim assessed elsewhere. Almost none should be coming here, because it is almost imposible for them to arrive here before they arrive in another EU state. The "No" sides arguments in the citizenship-referendum (clearly related to this issue) have been simply to call their opponents the "R" word and to claim a comparison between Irish immigrants at the time of the Famine and modern-day asylum-seekers. This comparison is rubbish because Ireland was experiencing a famine then whereas Romania and Nigeria are not. Let us remember the Dublin Convention 1981 which demands that asylum-seekers only claim asylum in the first EU state of entry. The other EU states see fit to shunt their obligations under this and we are therefore forced to take measures like the citizenship referendum which DOES relate to the illegal-immigration issue. And please, stop the hair-splitting about whether most of these asylum-seekers are or are not illegal or legal immigrants. They nearly ALL are because of the lack of direct flights between their countries and ours, unless you are suggesting they arrived here by hot-air balloon. My country has enough problems, e.g. National Development Plan and catering for our own poor, as well as Health and Education, without something else eating up the cake.

BuffyBot

What do you suggest we do? Kick them out and say, it's not our problem? I'm sorry but I don't think that's good enough!

No, if Ireland was the first country the came to, fair enough. However, it's pretty nigh impossible to come to Ireland without passing through another European country, most of which (if not all) have processes for dealing with asylum seekers.

So, I'd like to know why we shouldn't return asylum seekers to the first point of entry within the EU. Why choose Ireland over Greece, Italy, France etc?

Ryvita

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I think it was Ryvita that suggested that "maybe they think Ireland is a nice place to live" as an argument for letting in these asylum-seekers. Well tough. They are not in what you call "dire straits" when they arrive in the first EU country of entry. So let them stay in the first EU country of entry. My country's taxpayers are not legally obliged to cater for the 80% of the world's population that live in the Third World.

Yeah I said that, but I wasn't using it as an "argument for letting in these assylum seekers". To be honest I haven't made my mind up about this referendum and I'm just asking questions.

No we're not legally obliged to do anything. But do you suggest we just turn people away regardless of what they are going back to?

The Third World's problems will only be solved when we in the West start trading fairly with these countries, by removing the massive tariffs on imports from their countries. Encouraging a brain-drain neither helps us or them. It harms them by emptying their countries of skilled-labour needed to bring abour economic growth. It damages us by importing cheap labour that will undercut Irish wages and lose Irish jobs.

Fair enough, but the problems in these countries aren't going to be fixed over night. People are still trying to escape poverty, persecution etc.

Look, as far as I am concerned, they can get their asylum claim assessed elsewhere. Almost none should be coming here, because it is almost imposible for them to arrive here before they arrive in another EU state.

I just feel that we have a responsibility to provide help.

The "No" sides arguments in the citizenship-referendum (clearly related to this issue) have been simply to call their opponents the "R" word

I completely agree with you on this one. The last thing people should be doing is trying to stifle people's opinions in this debate.

and to claim a comparison between Irish immigrants at the time of the Famine and modern-day asylum-seekers. This comparison is rubbish because Ireland was experiencing a famine then whereas Romania and Nigeria are not.

Em, the 1980s, I think you'll find we sent a lot of "economic migrants" to the states and to the UK. Many of whom in the states were illegal as well.

Let us remember the Dublin Convention 1981 which demands that asylum-seekers only claim asylum in the first EU state of entry. The other EU states see fit to shunt their obligations under this and we are therefore forced to take measures like the citizenship referendum which DOES relate to the illegal-immigration issue.

Other european countries are accepting far more assylum seekers than we are. Germany being a prime example. I think it's only fair that we accept some as well.

And please, stop the hair-splitting about whether most of these asylum-seekers are or are not illegal or legal immigrants. They nearly ALL are because of the lack of direct flights between their countries and ours, unless you are suggesting they arrived here by hot-air balloon.

Do you know this for a fact? How do you know that they haven't applied outside the country? Back it up.

My country has enough problems, e.g. National Development Plan and catering for our own poor, as well as Health and Education, without something else eating up the cake.

I'm sorry I don't buy this. We are a well off country ... sure we have problems (all countries do) but there are countries out there who are way worse off than we are. I feel that it is only right that we go someway to helping these people out as much as we can. And that we should treat them with dignity and respect.

Ryvita

Originally posted by BuffyBot
No, if Ireland was the first country the came to, fair enough. However, it's pretty nigh impossible to come to Ireland without passing through another European country, most of which (if not all) have processes for dealing with asylum seekers.

So, I'd like to know why we shouldn't return asylum seekers to the first point of entry within the EU. Why choose Ireland over Greece, Italy, France etc?

You make out like there are no assylum seekers/economic migrants in these countries? We have a responsibility to share the burden.

arcadegame2004

"Maybe they would get kicked out of the first country they get to? Maybe they think Ireland would be the safest option?

What do you suggest we do? Kick them out and say, it's not our problem? I'm sorry but I don't think that's good enough!" (Ryvita)

If they've already arrived in another EU state then I say send them back such a country. If their applications for asylum (if they made any which they should have) in another EU state have failed, then I say, send them back to their own countries. You say we have a responsibility to take some of the burden of economic migration. However, we have already done this via the issuing of 150,000 work-permits and that doesn't even include the families of these people who have often been allowed to join their spouses in our state. Nor does it include the 60,000 asylum-seekers living off the Irish taxpayer. Enough is enough!

arcadegame2004

"Do you know this for a fact? How do you know that they haven't applied outside the country? Back it up." (Ryvita)

Ryvita, the almost 100% chance that they arrived in another EU state before arriving here ALONE makes them illegal immigrants as it violates the Dublin Convention 1981, that's how I know.

Ryvita

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
However, we have already done this via the issuing of 150,000 work-permits and that doesn't even include the families of these people who have often been allowed to join their spouses in our state. Nor does it include the 60,000 asylum-seekers living off the Irish taxpayer. Enough is enough!

150,000 work-permits! These people pay tax. These people don't get handouts they are supporting their own families. What is your problem with that? Are they taking Irish jobs? If so lets drag back all the Irish people from all over the world who have work permits in the states, australia, Japan etc. We can't be having double standards! :rolleyes:

60,000 assylum seekers living off the taxpayer. Out of interest where did you get that figure? Has it really put you out? I don't think Ireland is doing badly. Employment is rising? Economy is picking up. People aren't starving to death?

Don't even say that this money could be spent on schools and hospitals. They used millions on the evoting rubbish that we didn't need.

Ryvita

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
"Do you know this for a fact? How do you know that they haven't applied outside the country? Back it up." (Ryvita)

Ryvita, the almost 100% chance that they arrived in another EU state before arriving here ALONE makes them illegal immigrants as it violates the Dublin Convention 1981, that's how I know.

'

Ok? So are they Asylum seekers, Convention refugees, Programme refugees or are they applying for Leave to remain?

I'll ask you again: How do you know that they haven't applied for asylum in Ireland from another country?

dathi1

150,000 work-permits! These people pay tax. These people don't get handouts they are supporting their own families. What is your problem with that?

Most people dont have a problem with legal work permit immigration especially if it helps fill gaps in the Jobs market.

60,000 assylum seekers living off the taxpayer.

I cant go by any formal stats but on the ground where I live in my estate alone 5 groups of Nigerians have 375,000euro houses paid for by the eastern Health Board since 1999( how do I know? I asked them), when I bought my first house. " 2 of these groups are now under investigation for fraudulently gaining funds from the local credit union by using stolen litter from our wheelie bins. The cops came around and warned everybody to make sure the postman pushes the post all the way through the letter box so as to prevent "certain individuals" from using out personal information in such activity. Give people something for nothing and they don't respect it.