Immigration- A Proper Debate

bonkey

Far Corfe wrote:

We have taken enough from Eastern Europe, until other EU countries open their doors like us, we should accept no more.

I don' t think you understand how the system works.

We had our chance. We said no, we didn't want to impose limits. Other nations said yes, they did, and they were allowed do so, to a maximum of 7 years.

The option is no longer there. If we want to impose limits today, we can do so by leaving the EU.

Should France, Germany, Italy leave the EU for maintaining their barriers?

Again, I don't think you understand how the system works.

An agreement was made as part of the Accession treaties to allow member states to put limits in place before May 1 2004, lasting no more than 7 years.

A quick check on the calendar shows you that its past May 1, 2004, but not past May 1, 2011. So no, they shouldn't leve the EU if they want to hold to the agreement they signed up to.

Your argument regarding us, however, is that we should not abide by the agreement we signed up to. Hence the difference.

Incidentally, do you think its a coincidence that our economy since 2004 outperformed all of those states who did impose limits?

The Geneva Convention and the Human Rights act is now just a ruse. We are being taken for suckers on a grand scale.

So thats a no to my request for examples, then?

bonkey

burnedfaceman wrote:

first post on this thread,if indeed ireland was to reform immigration policy i feel we should adopt policy along the lines of australian immigration policy where immigrants could only enter if they fit the criteria neccesary and have skills required by economy or can buy their way in to the country. it would be a more realistic approach to the issue.

So, as I asked the previous poster...do you believe we should leave the EU, as such a policy is not commensurate with the rules and conditions of membership?

obviously as an eu member we have to accept citizens of other member states, not an issue IMO

Hold on...either we can limit immigration to skills/numbers needed, or we can't. We already limit non-EU immigration in this way, so either you're saying we need do nothing, or you're saying we need to leave the EU.

I think the poster who mentioned abandoning the geneva convention was not proposing that we descend into an anarchaic state but rather we examine the fact that the geneva convention is open to blatant abuse primarily by african immigrants.

It is not the Geneva Convention which is the problem.

The manner in which we run our asylum system is the problem.

Besides...the argument has always been that if you change the system so that asylum is denied to people who lack proper documentation etc. then the likelihood is that as well as reducing fraud you will deny asylum to many of the most genuine cases.

So if what you're saying is that we need to change how we implement our system so that the needy get thrown out along with the fraudsters, then make the case why you think those innocents don't deserve our help.

Its no different to any legal system. If we dispense with the "innocent till proven guilty", then far fewer guilty people would be acquitted for one reason or another. Sounds brilliant, except that the reason its not done is because of the cost to the innocent.

genuine asylum seekers do not pick and choose which country they claim asylum in

Says who?

and the geneva convention allows immigrants to abuse this system.

What does the Geneva Convention allow thats the problem here?

australia has tackled its issue of asian immigration by housing its immigrants in large complexs where they are housed until their application is processed. this process can take up to five years and has resulted in word getting through that its not worth it to claim asylum in australia.

Sounds to me like you're saying that Australia has found a solution without needing the GC changed. So surely this example suggests that the GC need not be changed. What needs to be changed according to this logic is how we implement our asylum system.

when my family emigrated to australia in the dark days of the 1980s, we were not given any hand outs and worked. i believe a policy of making immigrants work and not receive any hand outs is a further option that ireland should explore. if immigrants want to come into the country then give them nothing and let them pay their own way.

Again, you seem to be ignoring our obligations under membership to the EU. Or are you (again) referring to non-EU immigrants only...where your description doesn't accurately describe the situation?

to summarise allow skilled workers come into the country and contribute,

Unless they're from the EU, right?

adopt a tough policy towards migrants who are bogus asylum seekers and allow genuine asylum seekers to live here after their period of processing and work

The Irish system does have a tough policy towards bogus asylum seekers. The problem is that the system isn't being enforced, isn't being efficiently run, and isn't allocated the resources it needs to do its job.

I've often said it, but before proposing a change to our system, we should actually make the existing system work. Implementing a replacement system we don't enforce either won't improve anything.

but receive nothing in way of handouts until such time as they begin to contribute

So you think we should let them starve while their application is being processed?

And after that, if they can't find a job, we just let them choose between dying on our streets of starvation or going back to the country we've agreed they should be kept safe from?

Comparing asylum seekers to economic migrants is untenable. Their situations are completely different. Saying that because economic migrants don't get handouts, asylum seekers should get nothing either is illogical.

Compare the entry conditions to Australia for your family vs. for asylum seekers. Your family needed either resources to support themselves and/or skills which were in demand. Asylum seekers need to show they are trying to save their lives. They may be uneducated. They may be without resources. They may not have any skills. Unlike economic migrants, they don't have a home nation they can return to...that being the whole reason they were granted asylum. By what possible logic should these people be treated the same?

burnedfaceman

i do not advocate withdrawl from the EU but if people deem the need to address the immigration problem that highly then perhaps the government could lobby for a revision of this aspect of policy were it would fight strong support from EU heavyweights such as Britain, Germany and Spain.

thats a fair point you have made on implementing our asylum system correctly.

genuine asylum seekers concern is safety and as such the nearest safe place should be their concern not getting themselves to a european country where they can come to live off that state.

i think you will find that the equality aspect of the geneva convention raises the abuse of the system as under this aspect of the legislation immigrants are entitled not to be discriminated against and be provided for with access to healthcare, education and social security.

yes EU members should be allowed enter the state as Ireland has benefitted immensely from EU membership.

the australian example does suit the situation as when people are granted access to work in australia they dont receive handouts similarily in Ireland when they receive the same right they should be made pay their own way. if this involves them starving on account of not wanting to work then let them starve or go home.


i stated that australia confines them to comlexes were they are provided accomodation and food so no they would not starve waiting to be processed.

in terms of economic migrants and asylum seekers unless they are coming from war zones or escaping from genocide which the majority of "asylum seekers" are not coming from then i draw no distiction between them as unskilled as they may be they can work in unskilled jobs and if they have no resources how did they manage to come all the way from africa to ireland unless they are part of the UN refugee programme?

bonkey

burnedfaceman wrote:

i do not advocate withdrawl from the EU

So then you don't advocate limiting access based purely on skills and job-needs. Thats ok, I just wanted to make sure.

but if people deem the need to address the immigration problem that highly

First, we'd need to show there's a problem.

Generally, you have people complaining one of two things :

1) It isn't really helping our economy
2) It will lead to problems like other countries have had.

Neither argument stands up to scrutiny to be honest, so to go to the EU and plead either case would be pointless. We'd either have to argue that the strongest economy in Europe is being held back by immigrants and should be allowed be even stronger (laugh), or that we're worried about problems we might have down the road and are rethinking the entire idea of freedom of travel now that its not us who benefits from it.

genuine asylum seekers concern is safety and as such the nearest safe place should be their concern not getting themselves to a european country where they can come to live off that state.

Thats an unfounded assumption on your part. It is well established that :

- Asylum seekers will often try to get as far away as they can, not just the first safe country
- Asylum seekers will often try to get to where they think they have the best chance of making something of their life rather than condemning themselves to live in a refugee camp for an unknown period of time
- Asylum seekers will choose nations where there are already established communities of their own nationality

Not only that, but the argument of "first safe country", you will find, is mostly only espoused by those who don't live adjacent to a nation from which people seek asylum. Its a polite way of saying "let someone else take all the burden".

yes EU members should be allowed enter the state as Ireland has benefitted immensely from EU membership.

Good. So we're agreed that Ireland shouldn't limit immigration based on needs and skills like Australia does.

the australian example does suit the situation as when people are granted access to work in australia they dont receive handouts similarily in Ireland when they receive the same right they should be made pay their own way. if this involves them starving on account of not wanting to work then let them starve or go home.

Again, you're blurring the distinction between those given asylum and economic migrants.

This holds true to economic migrants in Australia, not those granted asylum.

i stated that australia confines them to comlexes were they are provided accomodation and food so no they would not starve waiting to be processed.

And once processed? If they are granted asylum, what happens to them? Kicked out onto the street without a penny to their name, and told to fend for themselves, and if they die for want its their own problem?

in terms of economic migrants and asylum seekers unless they are coming from war zones or escaping from genocide which the majority of "asylum seekers" are not coming from then i draw no distiction between them

But the only asyhlum seekers granted asylum are exactly those - the ones coming from war zones, escaping genocide, or otherwise genuinely having their lives saved.

So you draw a distinction between the refugee (i.e. the successful applicant for asylum) and the economic migrant, right?

if they have no resources how did they manage to come all the way from africa to ireland unless they are part of the UN refugee programme?

Theoretical situation....

You have 1500 Euro and a job offer in Ausrtralia, It costs 1000 Euro to get to Australia. Your job offer turns out to be a dud, and you don't have enough to get home. You spend your remaining 500 Euro whilst looking for a job.


Second theoretical situation :

You are running for your life from genocide or a war-zone. You leave all of your life behind, except what cash you can readily lay your hands on. It amounts to 1000 Euro. You spend that 1000 Euro getting to the country you seek asylum in. What do you have when you get there?

So...can you answer those questions and still claim that you can't get somewhere without arriving with money?

Look...I'm not making a case for being soft on bogus claimants. I'm making a case that applications need to be dealt with swiftly (which doesn't happen in Ireland), and that successful applicants need to be accepted as having had a valid claim and are therefore not somehow on a jolly because otherwise they wouldn't have been successful.

Is that so unreasonable?

burnedfaceman

ok, firstly in terms of european immigration i would hate to see our country go the way of Britain with mass ghettos and ethnic tension caused by immigration, france can be taken the same way as can the german experience with the turks. unplanned and unrestricted immigration will lead to this sort of situation in this country. watch this space.

in terms of dealing with asylum seekers picking and choosing where they want to go this is not the actions of an asylum seeker but an economic migrant. an asylum seeker wants safety, an economic migrant seeks to exploit a country such as ours were they can live off the state they have contributed nothing to. in respect to genuine refugees they should go through the proper channels of the un refugee programme were they are distributed to various countries who can and are willing to accept them.i have no issue with ireland accepting refugees in this manner.

i do not see or have problems with unskilled Eu workers coming to Ireland, Ireland has benefitted from EU funding immensely and the majority of these workers from eastern europe are coming here to work the majority for a short period of time while our economy is booming, they generally save and rent and will return home when their own economy picks up and ours declines. the only problem i have with EU migration is that it has allowed for criminals and fraudsters such as the Roma gypsies to come and ply their trade here.

I do draw a distinction between genuine refugees which have gone through the proper channels and those who are bogus.

your theortical situation only serves to illustrate the validity of my argument as your first example is that of an ecomonic migrant while the second is also that of an econmic migrant choosing where they want to go. there is a place for a refugee to go and its called a refugee camp. once they go here they enter the refugee programme and can then be transported to a new country.

i agree with what you have said in terms of processing applicants quickly, but can you not see that the actions of an asylum seeker who passes through most of europe to get here is wrong. they would be safe in any of the other countries they pass through but instead come to ireland purely to avail of our social services and other similar factors.

bonkey

burnedfaceman wrote:

there is a place for a refugee to go and its called a refugee camp. once they go here they enter the refugee programme and can then be transported to a new country.

I disagree.

Refugee camps are set up to offer support for those who did not have the capability to go further under their own steam.

Logistically speaking every single asylum seeker who can avoid a refugee camp lightens the load and makes saving more people easier.

Arguing that those people with the capability to get further should not be allowed do so is ultimately counter-productive. It would increase the costs.

A second problem with the scheme is that it basically allows nations to decide how many refugees they choose to take....except for those nations where the refugee camps are set up of course.

I agree that it would be possible to implement such a system in theory, but to do so, all UN nations would have to agree to vastly increase funding of such operations, agree unilaterally to allow refugee camps to be set up within their borders and run by the UN should they find themselves adjacent to a nation from which large numbers were fleeing (including adjacent by sea, so that nations like Ireland and Australia don't get a free pass), and that the numbers of refugees assigned to each nation were done on a non-volutnary basis (i.e. the UN assigned refugees to the nation, rather than the nation agreeing to take X many) with numbers derived from factors such as the nations economic capability, its population-density, and so forth.

Of course, under such a scheme, you'd find that we'd probably end up taking in more refugees rather than fewer, because at the moment we can just leave hundreds of thousands in refugee camps in some other country and convince ourselves that they're not our problem.

Zombrex

burnedfaceman wrote:

they would be safe in any of the other countries they pass through

There are a lot of problems with the "safe third country" concept

http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3b543d444.html

It is just easier and safer for us to process them. If we determine they are not genuine we can deal with it, rather than trusting this to a different country.

burnedfaceman

i made the above comment in the context of escaping genocide and the like, how can a person who is fleeing from genocide not consider any european country safe in comparison to what they have left?

this statement from your link serves to illustrate the point i made in relation to asylum seekers essentially eing economic migrants coming to ireland to avail the benfits they will receive.

"There are many reasons why asylum-seekers do not ask for protection in the first country in which this might be possible. Varying levels of material assistance and varying standards of protection are part of the explanation. As far as Central Europe is concerned, most asylum-seekers do not yet perceive this as an asylum region".

in essence they choose ireland because of our benefits they can exploit, they dont claim asylum in other countries because they perceive our country as an easy ride.

I worked with a bulgarian as he said they had no issues with immigrants, immigrants were given no incentive to stay and so left the country. this point is highlighted again in your link..Although asylum-seekers are increasingly being returned to countries in Central Europe which have been deemed "safe," the number of persons who apply for asylum in these countries remains very low.

i have made this point over and over again but the actions of a refugee would be to get to safety first and foremost not shopping around countries to see which one has the best social services they could exploit. these are the actions of economic migrants not refugees.

bonkey

burnedfaceman wrote:

"There are many reasons why asylum-seekers do not ask for protection in the first country in which this might be possible. Varying levels of material assistance and varying standards of protection are part of the explanation. As far as Central Europe is concerned, most asylum-seekers do not yet perceive this as an asylum region".

in essence they choose ireland because of our benefits they can exploit, they dont claim asylum in other countries because they perceive our country as an easy ride.

Either you completely ignored the part of the quote that I've underlined, or you see something exploitative in trying to make sure you're as safe as possible.

Which is it?

Although asylum-seekers are increasingly being returned to countries in Central Europe which have been deemed "safe," the number of persons who apply for asylum in these countries remains very low.

And? This indicates that personal perception doesn't necessarily match governmental perception.

Frankly, I'd be amazed if you can't find a single government on the planet where you agree with every single stance they take....but somehow you want to twist people disagreeing over what constitutes "safe" into their exploiting the system.

Tell me...if you believe something is a death-trap, but the beaurocrats who don't have to trust their life to it assure you that its safe enough....who will you put your trust in?

i have made this point over and over again but the actions of a refugee would be to get to safety first and foremost

And you've just ignored part of the quote you supplied saying that getting to what they perceive as a safer country is a factor in determining where people go.

You've also ignored the reality that logistically, historically, and practically, this view of yours is simply not borne out to be the case.

not shopping around countries to see which one has the best social services they could exploit. these are the actions of economic migrants not refugees.

An economic migrant can safely return home. A genuine refugee cannot.

While you can argue that economic incentives are a factor (and you seem to be arguing that they're the only factor), this still doesn't make them economic migrants. You could say they're a hybrid class, but they're not economic migrants no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

Gobán Saor

bonkey wrote:

We should have our own laws regarding asylum, the Geneva Convention and Human Rights act should be disregarded until it is updated for the 21st century, and its current abuses should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Could you give an example of this? I'm not sure what it is you're talking about.

Well, if it's an example you want, here's one of the more notorious. From the "scissors sisters" trial. http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/9083780?view=Eircomnet
Mr Birmingham told the jury:

.....the deceased had presented himself as Farah Swaleh Noor, a Somalian to assist his application for asylum. However, subsequent inquiries revealed he was from Kenya and called Sheilila Salim.

burnedfaceman

a genuine refugees primary concern is getting to safety? true or false
the actions of a genuine refugee would be to get safety first and foremost.

the point i made in asylum claims in central europe illustrates that these asylum seekers are not genuine as surely any place is better than were they have left.

are you trying to say that asylum seekers fleeing wherever they may be from in africa are likely to be subject to pogroms or the like anywhere in western europe if so id be delighted if you could inform me of any such instance where asylum seekers have been executed enmasse in a western european country in the last century?

in terms of asylum seekers deciding to claim asylum in a country which they perceive as a safer country, this is complete BS. as I have previously illustrated anywhere is going to be better and safer in any western european country compared to a country ravaged by genocide.

An economic migrant chooses the country they go to often using the pretext of being an asylum seeker which tarnisehes the possibility of genuine refugees being welcomed. A genuine refugee should be glad to go anywhere that is safe and as such should have no qualms going anywhere

bonkey

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Well, if it's an example you want, here's one of the more notorious. [/INDENT][/I]

Maybe I'm being a bit thick...can you explain how this is a problem with the Geneva Convention...which is what I asked for an example of.

bonkey

burnedfaceman wrote:

a genuine refugees primary concern is getting to safety? true or false

A genuine regugee's primary - but not only - concern is getting to where they consider themselves to be as safe as they can be.

the point i made in asylum claims in central europe illustrates that these asylum seekers are not genuine as surely any place is better than were they have left.

Not if they believe they're not far enough away to be safe, or in a country thats likely to send them back because it doesn't want to kick up a fuss with its neighbours, or isn't safe itself, or whatever.

are you trying to say that asylum seekers fleeing wherever they may be from in africa are likely to be subject to pogroms or the like anywhere in western europe

No. I'm saying those people are making a judgement call on where they know of, that they believe they can get to, and that they believe offers them the best chance of safety.

I believe that once that gives them a "short list" then other factors will come into play, including whether or not there is an established community of their own people there already, as well as other factors including economic ones.

Don't get me wrong...someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker has no sympathy from me, and I want no favours for them. What I want, however, is that genuine asylum seekers not be treated as criminals or leeches just because people don't like their choices.

if so id be delighted if you could inform me of any such instance where asylum seekers have been executed enmasse in a western european country in the last century?

No relevance. You don't get to make the decision for them as to what constitutes safety.

[
in terms of asylum seekers deciding to claim asylum in a country which they perceive as a safer country, this is complete BS. as I have previously illustrated anywhere is going to be better and safer in any western european country compared to a country ravaged by genocide.

An economic migrant chooses the country they go to often using the pretext of being an asylum seeker which tarnisehes the possibility of genuine refugees being welcomed. A genuine refugee is glad to go anywhere that is safe and as such should have no qualms going anywhere[/QUOTE]

Gobán Saor

bonkey wrote:

Maybe I'm being a bit thick...can you explain how this is a problem with the Geneva Convention...which is what I asked for an example of.

It's an example of an abuse of the Geneva Convention by an asylum seeker...... you asked for an example of the "abuses" of the Convention not an example of "problems" with it.

bonkey

burnedfaceman wrote:

a genuine refugees primary concern is getting to safety? true or false

A genuine regugee's primary - but not only - concern is getting to where they consider themselves to be as safe as they can be.

the point i made in asylum claims in central europe illustrates that these asylum seekers are not genuine as surely any place is better than were they have left.

Not if they believe they're not far enough away to be safe, or in a country thats likely to send them back because it doesn't want to kick up a fuss with its neighbours, or isn't safe itself, or whatever.

are you trying to say that asylum seekers fleeing wherever they may be from in africa are likely to be subject to pogroms or the like anywhere in western europe

No. I'm saying those people are making a judgement call on where they know of, that they believe they can get to, and that they believe offers them the best chance of safety.

I believe that once that gives them a "short list" then other factors will come into play, including whether or not there is an established community of their own people there already, as well as other factors including economic ones.

Don't get me wrong...someone who is not a genuine asylum seeker has no sympathy from me, and I want no favours for them. What I want, however, is that genuine asylum seekers not be treated as criminals or leeches just because people don't like their choices.

if so id be delighted if you could inform me of any such instance where asylum seekers have been executed enmasse in a western european country in the last century?

No relevance. You don't get to make the decision for them as to what constitutes safety.

in terms of asylum seekers deciding to claim asylum in a country which they perceive as a safer country, this is complete BS.

Then you shouldn't have quoted a paragraph from the very body you want to be in charge of asylum which shows that they recognise it as a real factor, should you?

An economic migrant chooses the country they go to often using the pretext of being an asylum seeker which tarnisehes the possibility of genuine refugees being welcomed.

Well its clear you wouldn't welcome them even without the non-genuine cases. You'd point to some intervening country and insist they get themselves hence.

A genuine refugee is glad to go anywhere that is safe and as such should have no qualms going anywhere

Thats your definition. I think you'll find that neither the Irish government, nor the UNHCR agree with you. Given that you think the latter should be in charge of asylum in the first place, you surely accept that its their opinion and not yours which should matter.

bonkey

Gob&#225 wrote: »

It's an example of an abuse of the Geneva Convention by an asylum seeker...... you asked for an example of the "abuses" of the Convention not an example of "problems" with it.

I was actually asking for an example to show why it needs to be disregarded, which is why I quoted that piece.

Every law is open to people abusing it. Thus, that someone abuses a law is no indication that the law is problematic and needs to be changed. It simply shows that its a law.

The argument was made that the GC needs to be disregarded because of its abuses. What you've demonstrated is that - like any other law - its not perfect. Can you explain why that means it needs to be disregarded?

bonkey

To make it clearer...the only "problem" that I see with the Geneva Convention is that it doesn't define a refugee in terms that those who want to be able to lock the doors to refugees like because it doesn't let them say "you came to our country, so you're not a real refugee. Get thee hence."

burnedfaceman

ok my last comment in relation to asylum seekers defining safety the point you ignored about the lack of violence against asylum seekers shows there is no historic evidence which illustrates that any western country is dangerous to asylum seekers.

"in terms of asylum seekers deciding to claim asylum in a country which they perceive as a safer country, this is complete BS."

i quoted from a link posted by another member i did not advocate they should be in control.

Quote:
the point i made in asylum claims in central europe illustrates that these asylum seekers are not genuine as surely any place is better than were they have left.
Not if they believe they're not far enough away to be safe, or in a country thats likely to send them back because it doesn't want to kick up a fuss with its neighbours, or isn't safe itself, or whatever.

the last time i checked central europe was a fair bit away from africa.

Well its clear you wouldn't welcome them even without the non-genuine cases. You'd point to some intervening country and insist they get themselves hence.

how many countries between ireland and africa have african communities already established from where they could also decide to go britain,holland,belgium to name but a few.

this argument could to and fro all day, my belief in terms of asylum seekers would be to have the system which you also agree with to assess genuine claims promptly and allow a limited amount in who are genuine. on entering these people should be made integrate into irish society.our nation should learn from the mistakes of others by eradicating the potential problems of tomorrow today. our country has its own culture and social practices. allowing too many asylum seekers enter can compromise this as a sizeable portion of ethnic britains have stated in their own nation that britain has lost its character in a recent survey.

can you honestly say objectively that their is nothing strange for asylum seekers to travel across the whole of europe to reach a small nation like ours
to claim asylum ?

your info says that your in switzerland do they not have an extremely strict immigration policy? switzerland is a very safe country is there a mass of immigration into that country? if so what social services are provided for asylum seekers in that nation? im not trying to be smart but would appreciate info on swiss policy

OPENROAD

Far Corfe wrote:

We have taken enough from Eastern Europe, until other EU countries open their doors like us, we should accept no more. Should France, Germany, Italy leave the EU for maintaining their barriers?

The Geneva Convention and the Human Rights act is now just a ruse. We are being taken for suckers on a grand scale.

Hang on,is your problem with Eastern Europeans only, can the English, French, German, Spanish etc.. come here

bonkey

burnedfaceman wrote:

can you honestly say objectively that their is nothing strange for asylum seekers to travel across the whole of europe to reach a small nation like ours
to claim asylum ?

Yes, I can.

I've met people who went from Eastern Europe, across Russia, the Bering Strait, Alaska and into Canada in order to get to where they believed they'd be safe. They weren't the only ones. Part of the journey they undertook underneath train carriages, crossing some of the most inhospitable landscape on the planet.

Why did they do this? Because the only way they could go at the time was east, and then they kept going east until they got to somewhere they believed they'd be safe.

Do I find that strange? No. I find it almost heartbreakingly sad. Do I think that having arrived in Canada they should have been sent packing because it was halfway round the world and surely they must have passed through somewhere safe (by beaurocratic standards) on the way? No, I don't.

Fortunately for them, they were welcomed. They were well treated, and indeed welcomed into society. They weren't looked on with suspicion because of their accents, nor for the suspicion that they were only there because Canada has a good standard of living and treats its asylum seekers well.

I know full well that not everyone who turns up on Ireland's doorstop is comparable to these people. I've lost track of the number of times I've stated clearly that I have no time whatsoever for those who are trying to abuse the system. But I will never accept as preferable a system which would turn the genuine cases away, or treat them shoddily having determined that they are genuine simply because someone wants to class them as no different to those gaming the system.

your info says that your in switzerland do they not have an extremely strict immigration policy?

I said there are over 35,000 Tamils in Switzerland. I don't think I commented on how strict the policy is. What I will say is that, while far from perfect, its run a hell of a lot better than the one in Ireland...which I still maintain is the main valid complaint which can be made about the Irish system.

Incidentally...do I think it strange that there are 35,000 Tamils in a small country like Switzerland - a disproportionate number compared to so many other nations? No, I don't. I commented before that, mathematically, I'd expect such disparity - that different nations would have different (dis)proportions.

switzerland is a very safe country is there a mass of immigration into that country? if so what social services are provided for asylum seekers in that nation? im not trying to be smart but would appreciate info on swiss policy

The Swiss system is, if anything, even more liberal than the Irish one. There was recently complaints from Amnesty about a law passed which said that after asylum had been refused the State was no longer going to continue to pay people while they remained in the country.

To be honest, if you want details on the Swiss policy, google "Swiss asylum policy" and you'll come up with no shortage.

This is a pretty interesting summation of some of the Swiss statistics. Note in there the numbers per country for 2006. Compare and contrast with the figures here where it is noted :

Ireland received 4,314 applications - under 1.5% of all who sought asylum in the industrialised world. (4,545 applied in Malta and 4,223 in Poland.)

Ireland is comparable to Malta and Poland. Switzerland - a smaller country with a higher population density received more than twice as many as Ireland did. The Netherlands over 3 times as many. Sweden received more than 5 times what the Irish did.

The reality is that no matter which way you cut the pie, Ireland has gotten off and is getting off lightly and still the Irish complain. We get people saying we should "only" take our fair share, but if you look at the figures, a fair share would involve an increase in the numbers!!!

Indeed, despite your insistence that the asylum seekers should go to Eastern Europe, the statistics show that many more of them do go there than turn up in Ireland.

If Ireland is a statistical blip, it is a blip in that it receives disproportionately few asylum seekers in comparison to the strength of our economy, our standard of living, and our reputation (which I often question) as a friendly and welcoming nation.

But still we hear the cries and see the wringing of the hands that we're being flooded.

The reality is that there are far, far more refugees and asylum seekers in the world than many are comfortable with. However, given that we can't just ask that they stay where they are and suffer, we seek to find some other "out of sight, out of mind" solution for them.

Let their impoverished neighbours stuff them into bare-necessity refugee camps where disease and starvation are rife. Sure, isn't it better than what htey had, and I can sleep better at night, knowing they're not being genocided and not in my country.

Zombrex

burnedfaceman wrote:

i made the above comment in the context of escaping genocide and the like, how can a person who is fleeing from genocide not consider any european country safe in comparison to what they have left?

Well for a start if they feel their asylum application will be revoked and they will be deported back to the original country.

I would also point out that most asylum seekers are not fleeing genocide.

burnedfaceman wrote:

in essence they choose ireland because of our benefits they can exploit, they dont claim asylum in other countries because they perceive our country as an easy ride.

That isn't really up to you to assume. There is a procedure to assess the legitimacy of an asylum seekers claim

burnedfaceman wrote:

i have made this point over and over again but the actions of a refugee would be to get to safety first and foremost not shopping around countries to see which one has the best social services they could exploit.

Have you been an asylum seeker or ever fled a country under fear of persecution or death?

There was a case in the 70s or 80s in America where the wife of a man in the witnesses protection program refused to be moved to an area that was away from her family. Assuming the rather bad TV3 made for TV "true story" movie about her was accurate she was shot and killed on the way to work.

Under your logic because this woman refused to leave her family even when faced with the possibility of death that must have meant that the threat of death was not real and she was just out to screw the witnesses protection program. Except she was shot. People do thinks for various reasons, that doesn't mean the threat they face isn't real.

I have no desire to second guess why an asylum seeker does what they do. There is a system to establish if a person is a genuine asylum seeker or not, and this is done on a case by case basis. Until then there is no valid criteria to assume someone isn't genuinely at risk, least of all where they want to get to.

Asylum status is not simply for nice people. Its not simply for rational people. It is not simply for productive members of society. Asylum is for people who are in fear of persecution, harm or death. That includes the assh*les, the ignorant, the fearful, the panicked, the opportunists.

Hobbes

Just to throw a spanner in the works your country doesn't have to be war torn to be able to claim Aslyum. Anyone can.

Believe it or not People have claimed Asylum from the USA. At least one of those I recall got refugee status. A reporter who claimed he feared for his life from the police force. That is going back some years (8 or more).

Although quick google I see at least 6 claimed asylum in the UK from USA last year. But in that case they are just screwing the system.

Scally07

Paris, Oldham, Brixton, Gang crime, home grown Terrorism, honour killings, human trafficing, having to fill equality quotas, And so much more. Holland, Britain, France, Germany and Sweden all know the benefits of multiculuralism.

Its all ahead of us and people like myself ten years down the line will be able to say 'told you so'.

Enoch Powell was spot on back in the 60's.

But hey, listen to indymedia, joe higgins and residents against racism. I'm nothin but an ignorant fascist scumbag.

bonkey

Scally07 wrote:

Its all ahead of us and people like myself ten years down the line will be able to say 'told you so'.

Well, wait the ten years, then, would you?

People like yourself have telling me now and for the past five years that in ten years you'll tell me "I told you so". Point noted. Its in my diary.

By the way...is it ten years from when people started telling me this, or is it ten years from each time I hear it, meaning its still ten years away?

Bit like fusion has been "twenty years away" as a power source for about 30 years now.

Zombrex

Scally07 wrote:

Paris, Oldham, Brixton, Gang crime, home grown Terrorism, honour killings, human trafficing, having to fill equality quotas, And so much more. Holland, Britain, France, Germany and Sweden all know the benefits of multiculuralism.

Its all ahead of us and people like myself ten years down the line will be able to say 'told you so'.

Enoch Powell was spot on back in the 60's.

But hey, listen to indymedia, joe higgins and residents against racism. I'm nothin but an ignorant fascist scumbag.

I seem to remember the "Wait ten years" line being used, well, ten years ago in 1997.

Oh we can't let the immigrants in, they will bring crime with them won't they! Multiculturalism! Bah! Fancy left wing nonsense for the import of crime and disease

The biggest crime issue in Dublin ten years later in 2007?

That would be the Irish drug families having a mini-war with fellow Irish drug families.

To paraphrase Moe from the Simpsons "I knew it was the immigrants. Even when it was the Irish drug dealers, I knew it was the immigrants"

I would imagine that in ten years time Scally you will be on this website or a similar one warning us all about the dangers just around the next ten year bend.

"You wait (another) ten years!! Just wait!"

bob2000

Wait the 10 years ? see what happens ? Yeah, don't bother planning / thinking / looking at other countries. Name one European country that has successfully integrated large numbers of non-eu immigrants ? Didn't think so. Oh, i've a great idea, you know the way that we feel guilty about the 10 years of prosperity we've had over the last few hundred years ? It can be cured - Lets heal the world man....................... Lets invite in thousands of people who have nothing in common with us culturally, who regard our women as prostitutes, and our men as drunks .......................leave for 50years, then simmer. To look at a receipe that has been prepared earlier - just look across the Irish sea

bonkey

bob2000 wrote:

Wait the 10 years ? see what happens ? Yeah, don't bother planning / thinking / looking at other countries.

Thinking you say?
Planning?

Then you'd be of the opinion that its not ncessarily all ahead of us then, like the comment I was responding to? Bit like me, really?

Name one European country that has successfully integrated large numbers of non-eu immigrants ?

Switzerland. Switzerland is in Europe.

50,000 Africans. 92,000 Asians. 51,000 from the Americas.

Thats excluding the more-than-quarter-of-a-million ex-Yogslavs, the 140-odd thousand Portuguese, 84,000 Spanish, 83,000 Turkish, and another good half million or so from neighbouring nations....seeing as you wanted them excluded.

Didn't think so.

You thought wrong, apparently.

To look at a receipe that has been prepared earlier - just look across the Irish sea

What happened to thinking? To planning? To looking at other countries (and learning both from their successes and failures)?

Or was that only a nice soundbite to throw around before declaring it a fait accompli, failure-in-the-making.

bob2000

I think that if we do not change our approach we will run into problems.

I cannot say it clearer than that.

Was not familiar with the situation in Switzerland, maybe they know something that the Uk, France, Spain, Norway, Germany etc do not.

Listen to this for wannabe right-on hysteria, can almost hear the sobs

"Let their impoverished neighbours stuff them into bare-necessity refugee camps where disease and starvation are rife. Sure, isn't it better than what htey had, and I can sleep better at night, knowing they're not being genocided and not in my country." - sound familiar at all ?

sob...i never realised.....you mean the world isn't fair ? We aren't all one happy family after all ? But doesn't that mean that there are cultural differences between people, and countries have borders for a reason ?
Must be some flaw in my reasoning............................................

Zombrex

bob2000 wrote:

Wait the 10 years ? see what happens ? Yeah, don't bother planning / thinking / looking at other countries. Name one European country that has successfully integrated large numbers of non-eu immigrants ?

There is probably very little point in replying, since "successfully" is a very subjective term, and you can simply say "I don't think that was successful" no matter what I say.

Some people will just always hate the idea of foreign people being in Ireland. That was true 10 years ago, it will be true 10 years from now. The rest of us just get on with living ...

bob2000

Good example of the inherent dishonesty of the political correctness camp. Everyone who disagrees is simply rascist. Bit like the way the Israelis deflect debate over palestine.