Rejecting some myths about Immigrants

Zombrex

Captain Trips wrote:

I'll reiterate the main part of my argument here, for anyone who wishes to make a reasonable debate:

1. Non-irish EU and EEA workers can claim family and child benefits in Ireland

2. Those workers do not have to meet Habitual Resident Requirements. This is referenced :
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/moving-to-ireland/introduction-to-the-irish-system/residency_requirements_for_social_assistance_in_ireland

3. As such, non-reisdent EU and EEA children have access to benefits paid for primarily by the Irish tax payer. The child may have never even resided or visited Ireland. The parent can be working in Ireland for as little as a week to claim them.

4. The benefits are around €140/week - over 10 times what they are in Poland.

5. Only the UK, Ireland and Sweden allow this transfer of benefits across borders. No other EU country, including Poland, allows the payment of benefits to non-resident workers.

And....?

I'm not following your objection to this? You seem to have an underlying assertion that there is no money left over for Irish children? Anything to support this claim?

Getting back to the thread topic, the biggest "myth" I see flying around on all immigration threads on Boards is the idea that if something for immigrants costs money that means that some where else Irish people are not getting money directly because of the immigrants being here.

The simple fact of the matter is that is a nonsense generalization of the way government works. There are not simply two big piles of money, one for immigrants and one for Irish people, and the immigrants keep stealing from the Irish pile.

I work at the moment (on contract) for the public service. If government departments worked like the argument above it would be like saying that if I get a new stapler or computer monitor someone in a HSE office in Mayo (I don't work for the HSE btw) doesn't get a stapler or computer monitor, because its all the one big pile of money.

Its funny the way people can go to great detail to explain what immigrants can get and then simply fall back on the most ridiculous idea of government so they can feel that because immigrants get this some where some Irish person must be missing out.

Nonsense.

GarraiGamhain

We should differentiate between immigrants and asylum seekers. Every single asylum seeker in Ireland is a fraud and a con. Given our Island nature and our political relationship from NI there can be no legitimate refugees or asylum seekers. THey cost the state huge money in housing, processing and deporting. Each deportation flight to Nigeria costs the govt. over a million euro.

Duras

Captain Trips wrote:

Irish child benefits: ~€140/week
Poland child benefits: €11/week

From where did you get this amounts off? We are talking about ~€140/month, right?

Zombrex

GarraiGamhain wrote:

We should differentiate between immigrants and asylum seekers. Every single asylum seeker in Ireland is a fraud and a con.

Well its good to see this thread isn't going to descend into nonsense generalisations ... :rolleyes:

GarraiGamhain wrote:

Given our Island nature and our political relationship from NI there can be no legitimate refugees or asylum seekers.

That isn't true. The Dublin Convention doesn't define an asylum seeker to be non-legitimate if they do not declare at their first entry into the EU. You can be a legitimate asylum seeker and not declare in your first port of entry.

Its like saying that if I get mugged in O'Connell St and report it at the Trinity Gardai station rather than the O'Connell St one it must mean I'm making it up. Nonsense, though I would understand if Trinity tell me to go to O'Connell St because they don't want to deal with it.

GarraiGamhain wrote:

Each deportation flight to Nigeria costs the govt. over a million euro.

So you don't want bogus asylum seekers here, but you also don't want the government to deport the bogus asylum seekers because it costs to much money

Not sure you have fully thought that one through there Garrai

GarraiGamhain

I want them put in detention centres in teh middle of nowhere like they are in Australia. Then they should be put into labour for a year to pay for their deportation. My point stands about their being not a single genuine refugee in Ireland.

Zambia

GarraiGamhain wrote:

I want them put in detention centres in teh middle of nowhere like they are in Australia. Then they should be put into labour for a year to pay for their deportation. My point stands about their being not a single genuine refugee in Ireland.

While having fairly hardline migration policies myself I still cant see how you can prove this , hence unless you can I suggest you stand down from your quite racist rhetoric.

Basically you just hate foriegners thats your piont now move on.

GarraiGamhain

I don't hate foreign people. I just don't like being taken for a ride by them and feeling pressurised to say nothing because I don't want to appear racist.

Zombrex

GarraiGamhain wrote:

I want them put in detention centres in teh middle of nowhere like they are in Australia.

Yes because building and running a large prison costs less that a flight to Nigeria :rolleyes:

GarraiGamhain wrote:

My point stands about their being not a single genuine refugee in Ireland.

If by "point" you mean "unsupported and rather ridiculous generalization", they yes it does

Zombrex

GarraiGamhain wrote:

I don't hate foreign people. I just don't like being taken for a ride by them and feeling pressurised to say nothing because I don't want to appear racist.

Yet you are perfectly happy for the government to spend millions to make them suffer for coming here?

Clearly the cost to the tax payer isn't your motivation for your anti-asylum seeker stance since what you propose would cost us far far more than the current system of assessment and deportation. The only conclusion is that you want to punish them for something (daring to come here I guess)

GarraiGamhain

You show me one legitimate refugee in Ireland. Where is he/she from? Why didn;t they go accross the border to the country beside them. Why did they decide on a faraway island nation like Ireland? A proper refugee doesn't book flights months in advance to escape war/persecution.

dochasach

Captain Trips wrote:

You've onlu provided a part-answer. the Habitual Residence Requirement, which is required to claim beneifts, is NOT a requirement for EU or EEA nationals.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/moving-to-ireland/introduction-to-the-irish-system/residency_requirements_for_social_assistance_in_ireland.

The website you linked to is out of date in this regard, and you can see clearly that the Citizens Information site states that the requirement is not necessary for

One-Parent Family Payment
Guardian's Payment (Non-Contributory)
Family Income Supplement
Child Benefit.

What? A government website intended for passing on accurate information to immigrants was out of date? I'm shocked! Or at least newcomers would be shocked. Are you saying that the form on this website is wrong:http://www.welfare.ie/forms/cb1.pdf


If so, what is the correct form one would use to send child benefit to dependent children abroad?

The govenment Welfare site still says "To qualify for Child Benefit you must satisfy the Habitual Residence Condition. This condition took effect from 1 May 2004 and affects all applicants regardless of nationality. See information booklet SW 108 for more information.

Even assuming the independent non-government site you linked to is correct, you left a few things out:

EU/EEA citizens and Swiss nationals who are employed or self-employed in Ireland and subject to the Irish Social Insurance system, do not have to satisfy the habitual residence condition to qualify for Family Benefits. The following Irish social welfare payments are classified as Family Benefits under EU Regulations:

Then the benefits you listed. All of these should be considered rebates of taxes paid because they only apply to those who work, i.e. taxpayers.

EU/EEA workers will satisfy the habitual residence condition but people from the EU/EEA who move to Ireland in search of employment are subject to the habitual residence test in the normal way while looking for work.

So, you could please comment further on how Ireland is supporting families and children not born nor have ever been resident here? I used the MRCI site, as it would avoid accusations of racism - I am using migrant and public resource websites for references.

I already have.

Your personal circumstances are not relevant to the argument, I think.

The personal circumstances of a few individuals who some feel cheated the Irish Child benefits system lead to a media frenzy in the Irish broadsheets and a political firestorm. The reason my circumstances are relevant is that they happen to apply to all non EEA/EC nationals with children in Ireland. The most recent "Childcare allowance" benefit is not available to Non EU workers, even though they and their children live in Ireland and even though pay taxes to support this benefit for others.

The benefits are around €1000/year (low estimate as currently it is ~€140/month) for around 100,000 people (which is ~20% of the migrant population in Ireland who have dependent children). In case you missed it, it was reported by Irish Time and Independent around 8 weeks ago, have a google.

I found an article. As I suspected these numbers had been pulled out of a politician's ***, in this case the 150 million claim came from FG. Do you really think all of the migrants with children are even aware of these child benefits and all of these have dependent children living abroad? Most of this money isn't leaving Ireland but the hypemongerers would have you believe that. The article ended with:

The Government says the payments to children not resident here will not significantly add to the cost of the scheme.

Thanks for taking credit for all of the home built last year. How many exactly? All homes? by all Polish workers? Source please? I don't think you'll find one. Are you really suggesting that Polish workers built every single house in Ireland last year?

Of course I'm not claiming that all of the houses built in Ireland last year were built by Polish immigrants any more than someone could claim that Irish built Birmingham or Boston in the 80s, but if legal immigrants stopped working here (as illegal immigrants in the U.S. recently did), you'd see a bigger impact than you would during an average SIPTU strike. Without immigrant construction workers you'd either see higher house prices because supply of construction labor wouldn't meet demand, or the houses wouldn't be built. Immigrants are a convenient supply of tenants for speculative landlords. They seem to be less allergic to renting than the local population is.

And that all of the asking price of each house is a "contribution" to the Irish economy? You realise that that is 24 billion borrowed by Irish people primarily to purchase those homes? Stop using magic maths. What is a contribution?

To be honest it's difficult to talk about the housing sector of the Irish economy without using some magic maths, but I'll try. For the 24 billion the buyers got a roof over their head (or a rental investment) and the banks invest the money. Some of this money was returned to Irish businesses, but you're correct that some of it probably left Ireland. I suspect banks send far more than the mythical 150 Million abroad and no one raises an eyebrow.

My stamp duty windfall estimate was a bit high. FTBs are exempt, but they seem to be dropping out of the market recently and the average house stamp duty rate is now 6% which would still only amount to 1.44 Billion assuming every house built was average.

Give me numbers, not ideas. Give me facts and not suggestions.

Labling something as FACT: doesn't make it so. I could do it, but it might annoy other readers. Here are some from finfacts: http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006756.shtml

* In the second quarter of 2005, there were 242,000 people employed in the construction industry. Approximately 1 in 8 people (12.6%) employed in Ireland work in construction. This compares with an EU average of less than 8%.
* Of the 258,000 net increase in total persons at work between 2000 and 2005, over 76,000 (or 30%) were in the construction sector.
* It is estimated that there were over 25,000 non-Irish nationals working in the construction sector in the fourth quarter of 2005. They represented about 10% of the total number employed in construction. About 15,000 construction workers are from the former Accession States.

Whoops, I didn't overestimate the stamp duty kitty after all:

Stamp Duty exceeds €2 billion

* Stamp duty on property transactions amounted to €2 billion in 2005, a three fold increase in the three years since 2002. Three quarters of all revenue raised from stamp duty in 2005 related to property transactions.

O.K. 10% of the total employed in construction were immigrants.
Stamp duty amounted to 2 Billion.

Even if they didn't pay a cent in VAT or income tax, at the very least, immigrants contributed work which leads to 200,000,000 Euro in taxes.

But wait, there's more: http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10007496.shtml

Goodbody Strockbrokers says construction now amounts to more than 20% of Ireland's GDP.

10% of construction workers are immigrants and construction contributes 20% of the GDP.
The GDP was €161.6 bn in 2005, 20% of that is €32.2 billion. 10% of that is €3.2 Billion. So immigrant construction workers contributed about €3.2. billion to the Irish economy.

This is in a tangent to the original argument I had - that Poland has a population 10 times that of Ireland, yet Ireland is supporting children in POland without any minimum residence requirement of the parents in Ireland...

I'd love to see the actual number who are sending child support abroad to Poland. It's certainly not 10 million. The FG politician or broadsheet journalist just wanted to stir people and it worked! It always works. If you can dig up a reference to actual numbers amounting to 150 million, I'll cave and end this subthread but I'm quite confident that its a sham.

It is NOT about the "economy" - a vacuous and ambiguous term. I am talking population numbers because that is what is relevant - a much smaller country supporting a much larger country, and only the UK and Sweden are the only other EU countries to have such a ridiculous situation when services in the home country are so poor.

Guess which economy the following numbers belong to:
Public finance:
Revenues €42.1 billion (2005 est.)
Revenues €44.3 billion (2006)

One belongs to Ireland, the other belongs to Poland. Population is a red herring as Ireland is not supporting the entire country of Poland. Polish individuals who work in Ireland are supporting themselves and in what I believe are rare cases some of their taxes are redirected back to a child in their homeland. What would people here think of as a fair solution? Should Ireland work out a benefits sharing agreement with EU states so that a benefit payable to a child would be paid by the local government at the local rate? If so, should the worker also be able to pay taxes to his home country instead of to Ireland? I believe such a system would be O.K. in principle, but adding a level of bureacracy in order to prevent a handful of individuals from sending money to their children abroad is the kind of thing that will contribute to bloat and inefficiency in government and won't help immigrants or Irish nationals.

Zombrex

GarraiGamhain wrote:

You show me one legitimate refugee in Ireland. Where is he/she from? Why didn;t they go accross the border to the country beside them. Why did they decide on a faraway island nation like Ireland? A proper refugee doesn't book flights months in advance to escape war/persecution.

More nonsense

The world wide refugee system would fall over if every refugee simply went to the country beside them. As Jordan who has taken in close to 2 million Iraqis and is begging other countries to take some of them

This "not our problem" attitude that some Irish have to world events is not only seriously lacking in morality it is also ridiculous from purely a practical position. There are countries that handle far more refugees than us, who are actually pushed to real strain (not just the annoyance of seeing black people on the bus in the morning) yet we still complain about the trickle we get

And to answer you questions I know 2 asylum seekers, a brother and sister. They came here because they had family here (if you were a refugee would you not go to a country where you had family). One of them has been approved, the other is still being processed.

I don't know them very well but I promise I will sit them down and quiz them about the details of their travel here because you have a bee in your bonnet over refugees.

Zambia

GarraiGamhain wrote:

I don't hate foreign people. I just don't like being taken for a ride by them and feeling pressurised to say nothing because I don't want to appear racist.

You are quite free to air these opinions but please try and back up the statement with some proof for example the statement

"There is not one asylum seeker who is not a fraud" You simply cant back that up with anything.

dochasach

GarraiGamhain wrote:

You show me one legitimate refugee in Ireland. Where is he/she from? Why didn;t they go accross the border to the country beside them. Why did they decide on a faraway island nation like Ireland? A proper refugee doesn't book flights months in advance to escape war/persecution.

Those who review refugee status and have much better knowledge of individual situations disagree with you and accept some refugees as legitimate.

According to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a person who
“ owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country. ”

I don't see anything in that convention that forbids the use of air travel for "proper refugees". Where would refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia be if they had to walk to bordering countries to be considered legitimate?

Gobán Saor

Interesting post - yes, there are indeed some urban myths but there also is at least a grain of truth in some of them.

dochasach wrote:

Myth #1: "You can arrive from africa or eastern europe and claim political asylum and get a free house, car, the lot. But if you are Irish, born, bred and reared and are down on your luck you get nothing."

Reality: You can arive from africa or wherever and immediately claim asylum. Even if there is no substance whatsoever to your claim. While awaiting assessment, you will be accommodated, fed, and given complete medical and dental care. Your children will be educated. All free.
Your claim will be assessed to see if it is valid. If it's rejected, you have a right of appeal. If you lose your appeal, you can apply for permision to stay anyway. If you still fail, you can try a High Court Appeal or seek a judicial review.
The government has set up the RLS (Refugee Legal Service) to help you advance your claim every step of the way. Needless to say this is free too.
If you're successful at any stage, you're in. Forever. Complete with spouse, dependents etc. For the rest of your life, you will be entitled to a house, an income, free medical and dental care, education to third level for you and your children. The supplementary welfare system will provide furniture, TV and electrical goods but, yes, it will not stretch to a car. Not so much a myth as a slight exageration.

dochasach wrote:

Myth #2: "You can get automatic citizenship by having a child here."

As far as I know, this has never been true. It certainly isn't true now and the more we spread the word around the world, the less likely people will come here thinking this is the case. he problem is, as recently as early 2007, RTE (Ireland's tax subsidized national T.V. station) was still reporting this myth as fact. The citizenship referendum (voted by a majority, understood by a minority), did nothing but remove the automatic citizenship right of children born in Ireland. The parents never had that right.

Technically a myth but used to be true in practise. The reality was that children born in Ireland were entitled to citizenship. A practise had grown up whereby the parents of such children were allowed stay indefinitely and receive al the benefits listed above. Naturally this became an attractive option and led to the upsurge in non-national births. It was a reasonable presumption that many of these births were planned to happen in Ireland solely for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and residency for the parents. It was hotly denied at the time (by the pro-imigration lobby) that this was happening but facts would seem to bear this out as the number of such births has now dropped dramatically.

dochasach wrote:

Myth #4: "Immigrants can get automatic citizenship by marrying an Irish person."

Used to be true. Again needed to be changed to counter abuse.

dochasach wrote:

Myth #7: "Immigrants are the cause of our high traffic fatailty rate." Traffic fatalities are actually lower than they were years before the immigrants came. Many countries where these immigrants come from have lower traffic fatality rates than here. The problem we're a 1st world country with a 4th world road infrastructure, and we drive too fast.

You're mising the point. Overall fatalities have fallen for all sorts of reasons. Yes we drive too fast and the roads are poor but these factors should effect native and immigrant alike. There still seems ito be a disproportionate level of accidents involving immigrant drivers.

dochasach wrote:

Myth #8: "Immigrants are the reason our hospitals are full, especially our maternity hospitals."

The Irish birth rate was actually higher in the 80s than it is now. Of the 4 immigrants in Holles when our child was born, two of them were Philipinos, a nurse and an obstetrician. The problem is really mismanagement of the resources we have.

Reality: This may be a myth now but there was a period before the citizenship referendum when it WAS true. It was common for expectant mothers to turn up in the late stages of pregnancy complete with a file of medical records and scans.


So you see. Most of the "myths" have (or had) at least some reality, often based on abuse and manipulation of the system by non-genuine asylum seekers. Is it any wonder that this behaviour was resented by the natives?

Zambia

That was a good post.

Fratton Fred

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Reality: You can arive from africa or wherever and immediately claim asylum. Even if there is no substance whatsoever to your claim. While awaiting assessment, you will be accommodated, fed, and given complete medical and dental care. Your children will be educated. All free.
Your claim will be assessed to see if it is valid. If it's rejected, you have a right of appeal. If you lose your appeal, you can apply for permision to stay anyway. If you still fail, you can try a High Court Appeal or seek a judicial review.
The government has set up the RLS (Refugee Legal Service) to help you advance your claim every step of the way. Needless to say this is free too.
If you're successful at any stage, you're in. Forever. Complete with spouse, dependents etc. For the rest of your life, you will be entitled to a house, an income, free medical and dental care, education to third level for you and your children. The supplementary welfare system will provide furniture, TV and electrical goods but, yes, it will not stretch to a car. Not so much a myth as a slight exageration.

very generous indeed. Trouble is, there will be genuine refugees who should be awarded protection, however as soon as one person abuses it (and I am sure there are many) the immediate reaction is everyone is abusing it.

Gobán Saor

Fratton Fred wrote:

very generous indeed. Trouble is, there will be genuine refugees who should be awarded protection, however as soon as one person abuses it (and I am sure there are many) the immediate reaction is everyone is abusing it.

You're quite right. I agree entirely we have duties towards genuine refugees. However, most asylum sekers are actually economic migrants. Now, there's nothing wrong with being an economic migrant - it's a very sensible course of action if you are unhappy with your prospects at home. But we don't realy have an economic migrant system in Ireland. So we force the economic migrants to pretend to be asylum seekers. And we pretend to believe them. Then we set up this ridiculous infrastructure to assess their status. Naturally people see through the pretence and it is this that generates the ill-feeling towards the genuine refugees.

Zombrex

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Reality: You can arive from africa or wherever and immediately claim asylum. Even if there is no substance whatsoever to your claim.

How do we differentiate between those with a genuine claim and those without one on the spot?

Gob&#225 wrote: »

While awaiting assessment, you will be accommodated, fed, and given complete medical and dental care. Your children will be educated. All free.

Asylum seekers cannot work. The alternative to this set up is that they are homeless and unable to feed themselves. Which I think we both agree isn't an option.

Asylum seekers are put in temporary accommodation in the same way that a homeless person is. Its not exactly the Ritz. They are feed because people gave out about them being given money for food.

Asylum seekers can get a medical card if they qualify for it the same as any poor Irish person. If they are means tested and it turns out they have access to money they won't get this. The ones that do have to sit behind waiting lists and shoddy public health care just like everyone else.

Again, just like the accommodation issue, the reason is that the alternative is to just let them get sick and hope for the best, which again isn't an option.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

The government has set up the RLS (Refugee Legal Service) to help you advance your claim every step of the way. Needless to say this is free too.

The Refugee Legal Service is means tested and it is not free.

http://www.ria.gov.ie/the_asylum_process/the_refugee_legal_service/

Gob&#225 wrote: »

If you're successful at any stage, you're in. Forever.

Again what is the alternative?

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Complete with spouse, dependents etc.

A successful refugee must apply to the Minister for Justice for family members to remain here. It is no automatic.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

For the rest of your life, you will be entitled to a house, an income, free medical and dental care, education to third level for you and your children.

Nonsense

Once a refugee has been granted asylum they become part of the normal workforce system. They get what any normal Irish person gets. They are not set up for life.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

The supplementary welfare system will provide furniture, TV and electrical goods but, yes, it will not stretch to a car.

It also won't stretch to furniture, a TV or electrical goods

"Exceptional Needs Payments" can be given to refugees who are still being processed, but as it says these are for "exceptional needs". TVs aren't covered, neither are hair cuts or children's toys or "entertainment money".

Examples of what are covered are things like children's nappies, children's clothes etc. All these have to be assessed by the HSE and must be justified as being exceptional circumstances. If you don't need it you aren't given it.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

It was a reasonable presumption that many of these births were planned to happen in Ireland solely for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and residency for the parents.

Half right.

In general (obviously not always) the goal wasn't residency for the parents, the goal was citizenship for the child within the EU so that the child could work in the EU when he grew up.

Similar things take place in the USA. For example Bruce Lee was born in San Fransisco. His parents left straight after he was born, but he had the option to return to work there, which obviously he did.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Is it any wonder that this behaviour was resented by the natives?

The issue isn't abusers being resented by the "natives" the issue is the natives resenting the entire system because of the perception that everyone is abusing the system.

dochasach

Good post, I appreciate that this thread has stayed fairly clean and civil. I still stand by my assertion that most of my "myths" are both well ingrained, and false.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Interesting post - yes, there are indeed some urban myths but there also is at least a grain of truth in some of them.

Reality: You can arive from africa or wherever and immediately claim asylum. Even if there is no substance whatsoever to your claim. While awaiting assessment, you will be accommodated, fed, and given complete medical and dental care. Your children will be educated. All free.

Your claim will be assessed to see if it is valid. If it's rejected, you have a right of appeal. If you lose your appeal, you can apply for permision to stay anyway. If you still fail, you can try a High Court Appeal or seek a judicial review.
The government has set up the RLS (Refugee Legal Service) to help you advance your claim every step of the way. Needless to say this is free too.
If you're successful at any stage, you're in. Forever. Complete with spouse, dependents etc. For the rest of your life, you will be entitled to a house, an income, free medical and dental care, education to third level for you and your children. The supplementary welfare system will provide furniture, TV and electrical goods but, yes, it will not stretch to a car. Not so much a myth as a slight exageration.

Slight exageration to say they get a free house and car? That's like saying criminals housed at mountjoy "own" property worth millions in central Dublin. Here is a quote from a government website trying to address the same myths:

http://www.ria.gov.ie/coming_to_ireland_as_an_asylum_seeker/
"You will be expected to remain in the accommodation centre to which you are dispersed until your application has been fully processed, including any appeal period if applicable. You may only move from this accommodation with the permission of the Reception and Integration Agency and only in circumstances where the Agency is in a position to offer you alternative accommodation....

Rent supplements are no longer payable to asylum seekers. Therefore, under no circumstances will you be granted any State supports to acquire rented accommodation. You must remain within the 'Direct Provision' scheme until you are granted refugee status, leave to remain or, if your application for refugee status is unsuccessful, until you are deported...

# You will not be allowed to seek or enter employment while your application for refugee status is being processed.
# You will not be allowed to carry on any business, trade or profession while your application is being processed.
# You will not be entitled to third level education or to vocational training while your application is being processed.
"

Technically a myth but used to be true in practise. The reality was that children born in Ireland were entitled to citizenship. A practise had grown up whereby the parents of such children were allowed stay indefinitely and receive al the benefits listed above. Naturally this became an attractive option and led to the upsurge in non-national births. It was a reasonable presumption that many of these births were planned to happen in Ireland solely for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and residency for the parents. It was hotly denied at the time (by the pro-imigration lobby) that this was happening but facts would seem to bear this out as the number of such births has now dropped dramatically.

The "grain of truth" here is theoretical, I reiterate that parents of Irish born children did not have automatic citizenship rights before the referendum. As recently as January 2007 RTE was still reporting that they did, it was a common assumption which led to the overwhelming referendum vote to remove the child's citizenship right and remains a common assumption today.

Does anyone have clear statistics on either the "upsurge in (foreign) births" or the "recent drop"? I would have thought these would have been presented around the time of the citizenship vote but it appeared to be legislation by anecdote. As it happens, the number of asylum seekers worldwide has dropped in the past couple of years so any drop in birth rates of asylum seekers in Ireland might have nothing to do with changes in Irish law.

You're mising the point. Overall fatalities have fallen for all sorts of reasons. Yes we drive too fast and the roads are poor but these factors should effect native and immigrant alike. There still seems ito be a disproportionate level of accidents involving immigrant drivers.

Does anyone have statistics or are we relying again relying on anecdotes from (possibly biased) gardi? I can be convinced on this one but until I see the data, I'm still calling it an urban myth.

Reality: This may be a myth now but there was a period before the citizenship referendum when it WAS true. It was common for expectant mothers to turn up in the late stages of pregnancy complete with a file of medical records and scans.

How common? If immigrant birthrate was a crucial problem and it has fallen significantly, why are the hospitals as much at crises today as they were in 2003?

So you see. Most of the "myths" have (or had) at least some reality, often based on abuse and manipulation of the system by non-genuine asylum seekers. Is it any wonder that this behaviour was resented by the natives?

I've often wondered why these myths were so hard to shake and why public policy is often directed by anecdotes about immigrants and ignores real problems faced by this minority. I suspect the answer lies in the fact that it is easy for people to develop a habit of playing the part of a victim. When you're a member of the majority in a free country, one of the most prosperous societies the world has ever known who do you blame when something goes wrong? In a culture of victimization, it's far easier to blame newcomers than it is to accept responsibility for bad roads, bad hospitals, bad water purification...

dochasach

Gob&#225 wrote: »

You're quite right. I agree entirely we have duties towards genuine refugees. However, most asylum sekers are actually economic migrants...

There were 4314 Asylum seeker applications last year, the lowest number since 1998. Are you saying most of these are economic migrants? How do you back this up? The truth is that it is much more likely that "economic migrants" (like the Polish here or Irish in NYC) legally here for valid reasons related to their professional skills are being lumped into a "them" category along with asylum seekers so that they can all be associated with the relatively small number of abusers.

Asylum seekers made big news not because of their great number (more than 100,000 poles came to Ireland since accession) but because people with dark skin are assumed to be asylum seekers and asylum seekers are assumed to be criminals. It's only one step away from assuming that people with dark skin are criminals, but people here seem quite comfortable with that buffer between their beliefs and racism.

GarraiGamhain wrote:

I want them put in detention centres in teh middle of nowhere like they are in Australia. Then they should be put into labour for a year to pay for their deportation. My point stands about their being not a single genuine refugee in Ireland.

MontgomeryClift

dochasach wrote:

There were 4314 Asylum seeker applications last year, the lowest number since 1998. Are you saying most of these are economic migrants? How do you back this up?

95% of asylum claims do not qualify for asylum so only 5% are deemed genuine asylum seekers. So you can believe that 95% are economic migrants, or you can believe that none are bogus and the asylum system is 95% unfair, or something in between.

HIEROPHANT

dochasach wrote:

anti-immigrant nationalism

Is "anti-immigrant nationalism" against american multinational that brings here jobs?

dublinfella

A high percentage of `natives` and `not so natives` have very little understanding of each others. Instead of asking questions here, why not invite a native, immigrant or an asylum seeker for a coffee and a chat?

Its funny that some people who bash `newcomers` with zeal are also vocal supporters of legalising Irish illegal immigrants in the USA.


Love, Peace

Alex.

Gobán Saor

Wicknight wrote:

How do we differentiate between those with a genuine claim and those without one on the spot?

Well, we could start by having automatic, immediate, rigorous interviews with arriving asylum seekers. Literally on the spot when they arrive at point of entry to the State. Inconsistencies can be probed, anomalies checked out - that kind of stuff. If necessary, further information could be sought later. Instead, we accept them as a formality and go into an incredibly tedious long-winded procedure to assess their claim. It is the length of the procedure coupled with the benefits provided during the period of assessment that provide an incentive to come here on a bogus basis.

Wicknight wrote:

Asylum seekers can get a medical card if they qualify for it the same as any poor Irish person. If they are means tested and it turns out they have access to money they won't get this. The ones that do have to sit behind waiting lists and shoddy public health care just like everyone else.

I doubt there are many asylum seekers who failed that means test! Again, while the health service isn't perfect, compared to many countries, it's good enough to attract bogus claimants. In fact, there have been some cases where claimants have based their case to stay in Ireland on precisely the lack of particular medical treatments in their home countries. Now, this might be perfectly understandable for them to do so,, it ain't what political asylum is all about.

Wicknight wrote:

The Refugee Legal Service is means tested and it is not free.

http://www.ria.gov.ie/the_asylum_process/the_refugee_legal_service/

Ho hum! Ok, the RLS provides representation up to and including the High Court. Have you any idea how much a High Court case costs to pursue? Might we agree €10k as a reasonable estimate? And for this, a maximum fee of €35 is charged! And even this can be waived if the applicant is on the direct provision scheme rather than social welfare. Technically, perhaps a fee of €35 is not "free", but for all practical purposes, if you're getting a service worth ten grand, then a fee of "up to" €35 is free. Particularly as the Irish taxpayer has given them the money in the first place.

Wicknight wrote:

A successful refugee must apply to the Minister for Justice for family members to remain here. It is no automatic.

No so. From the Reception and Immigration Agency website: http://www.ria.gov.ie/the_asylum_process/making_an_application/

If you wish to make a separate application on behalf of your minor children (or dependant(s)) a separate application form for a declaration as a refugee must be completed for each minor child (or dependant). If not, your accompanying minor children (or dependant(s)) will be included in your application and all decision taken in relation to your asylum application will apply to them.

Wicknight wrote:

Nonsense

Once a refugee has been granted asylum they become part of the normal workforce system. They get what any normal Irish person gets. They are not set up for life.


It also won't stretch to furniture, a TV or electrical goods

"Exceptional Needs Payments" can be given to refugees who are still being processed, but as it says these are for "exceptional needs". TVs aren't covered, neither are hair cuts or children's toys or "entertainment money".

Examples of what are covered are things like children's nappies, children's clothes etc. All these have to be assessed by the HSE and must be justified as being exceptional circumstances. If you don't need it you aren't given it.

It's not nonsense. What any normal Irish person gets is (if they can't provide it themselves) housing, an income, medical and dental care and free education to third level. HSE Welfare Officers have discretion to make payments for furniture, household goods including white goods and yes, that does include TVs.

Wicknight wrote:

Half right.

In general (obviously not always) the goal wasn't residency for the parents, the goal was citizenship for the child within the EU so that the child could work in the EU when he grew up.

Hardly, given that many of them immediately applied for permission to stay based on parentage of an Irish born child.

Wicknight wrote:

The issue isn't abusers being resented by the "natives" the issue is the natives resenting the entire system because of the perception that everyone is abusing the system.

There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the system is open to abuse.
There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the system is not designed to deter abuse.
There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the system is abused in at least some cases.
There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the system was even more open to abuse before the direct provision and citizenship referendum reforms.
There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the pro-immigration lobby resisted those reforms tooth and nail.
And you're surprised there's resentment?

fly_agaric

dochasach wrote:

I've often wondered why these myths were so hard to shake and why public policy is often directed by anecdotes about immigrants and ignores real problems faced by this minority.

If these "immigrant myths" often "direct public policy" here as you say (gasp!) why has Ireland still got such a massive immigration rate?

Can the lucre be so good that the immigrants are prepared to put up with how evil and racist and discriminatory the government and the citizens are towards them?
(I include the citizens since the govt.'s policies are dicated by their "immigration myths"!):D

What a load of bollox!

Zombrex

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Literally on the spot when they arrive at point of entry to the State.

Are you serious?

Who would carry out this interview. How is the person carrying out the interview supposed to check anything that is being told to them?

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Inconsistencies can be probed, anomalies checked out - that kind of stuff.

How exactly? And what do you do with the asylum seeker while you are checking these things out? Leaving them in baggage claim?

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Instead, we accept them as a formality and go into an incredibly tedious long-winded procedure to assess their claim.

That is because that is the only way that works. If we could easily assess an asylum seeker while they wait in the airport of ferry port do you not think we would?

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Again, while the health service isn't perfect, compared to many countries, it's good enough to attract bogus claimants.

I think it is stretching it a bit to claim that people abandon their home, family and country to come to Ireland for our health service. Its not that great.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Ho hum! Ok, the RLS provides representation up to and including the High Court. Have you any idea how much a High Court case costs to pursue?

Depends on your financial situation. Anyone defending themselves in say a criminal case who cannot afford a defense has one provided for them.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

No so. From the Reception and Immigration Agency website: http://www.ria.gov.ie/the_asylum_process/making_an_application/

That is for any young children of yours in your care. Bit different to asking for your wife or sister to come over. You can't return children back to somewhere where no one will take them in.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

It's not nonsense. What any normal Irish person gets is (if they can't provide it themselves) housing, an income, medical and dental care and free education to third level.

Last time I checked the HSE wasn't paying for my house or providing me with an income.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

HSE Welfare Officers have discretion to make payments for furniture, household goods including white goods and yes, that does include TVs.

That isn't true. I know people who handle claims like these and the reports that they are giving away hair cuts, spending money, TVs etc makes their blood boil.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Hardly, given that many of them immediately applied for permission to stay based on parentage of an Irish born child.

How many?

Gob&#225 wrote: »

There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the system is open to abuse.

All systems are open to abuse. I've never heard of any social welfare system that was not open to abuse.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the system is not designed to deter abuse.

How does one deter abuse without deterring legitimate claims?

Gob&#225 wrote: »

There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the system is abused in at least some cases.

Again all systems are abused in at least some cases.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the system was even more open to abuse before the direct provision and citizenship referendum reforms.

Well as I said above the citizenship referendum has meant that legitimate claims are not met. It is decreasing abuse while also decreasing legitimate claims. Its up to the individual I suppose if they feel it is worth it.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

There is a (perfectly correct) perception that the pro-immigration lobby resisted those reforms tooth and nail.

You are right, they did. Because they knew the above would happen.

Gob&#225 wrote: »

And you're surprised there's resentment?

Yes actually, considering of all the things that actually really effect people asylum seekers is very low down, both in terms of waste of tax money and individual day to day (there are only a few thousand asylum seekers in the country)

But then Irish people have always liked a scape goat to hang real problems on.

Gobán Saor

Wicknight wrote:

Are you serious?

Who would carry out this interview. How is the person carrying out the interview supposed to check anything that is being told to them?

Yes. It would be practical to interview asylum seekers at point of entry. Logistics might be tricky but hardly rocket science either. It might not conclusively determine their application but it would establish a basic record of the circumstances they claim gives rise to their refugee status. This would prevent the story being embellished and elaborated on at leisure some time later. Amazing how details that support the claim tend to emerge later after discussions with other claimants, refugee support groups, the RLS etc.

Wicknight wrote:

Last time I checked the HSE wasn't paying for my house or providing me with an income.

Generally I ignore smart-ass remarks like this :rolleyes: But as it distorts what i did say I will deal with it.
I never said the HSE paid for your house or gave you an income. I put in the qualification (if they can't provide it themselves) in relation to what the State will pay for. As you well know, the State does provide Social Welfare and Housing for those who can't provide it out of their own resources (and for some who can, but that's a different story)

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't true. I know people who handle claims like these and the reports that they are giving away hair cuts, spending money, TVs etc makes their blood boil.

Also, I never claimed the HSE provided haircuts - you threw that one in yourself.:rolleyes: I will happily accept (for what its worth) that the HSE does not provide haircuts. But I am well aware (personally) of many instances where household furniture was provided. I have actually SEEN the cheques from the HSE to the furniture suppliers. And I repeat, this DOES include TVs.

Wicknight wrote:

All systems are open to abuse. I've never heard of any social welfare system that was not open to abuse.

But we don't even attempt to deter abuse abuse of the asylum seeker system. In fact, we almost bend over backwards to facilitate it.

Wicknight wrote:

How does one deter abuse without deterring legitimate claims?

Well, we manage to do so for the tax system, the social welfare system and many other systems. A balanced approach of rigorous checking, penalties and disincentives is usually adopted.

Wicknight wrote:

Well as I said above the citizenship referendum has meant that legitimate claims are not met. It is decreasing abuse while also decreasing legitimate claims.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean here. The referendum did not change the rules for processing asylum claims, legitimate or otherwise.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes actually, considering of all the things that actually really effect people asylum seekers is very low down, both in terms of waste of tax money and individual day to day (there are only a few thousand asylum seekers in the country)

It's lowish now, but that's since the reforms. Prior to that it was well over 10,000 per year. Undoubtedly we were seen as a soft touch until we put some kind of system in place. A lot of the worst abuses and manipulation of our system have been dealt with but the resentment that that generated still remains.

InFront

Gob&#225 wrote: »

I have actually SEEN the cheques from the HSE to the furniture suppliers. And I repeat, this DOES include TVs.

How do you know? It isn't going to say it on the cheque.

Do you realise that all of these HSE employees, welfare officers and social workers each pay thousands of euro in tax euros as well? Do you think they would, seeing the poverty and inequality they witness every working day, hand over money from the funds to pay for televisions?
As Wicknight said, these are for exceptional needs; they apply to Irish poor people as well as immigrants. They don't include televisions.

Mucco

I honestly don't know why people feel threatened by immigrants. Most (probably all) of them are looking to better their lives. Various studies have shown that immigrants are more ambitious and hard-working than the native population. This is evidenced in that the largest economy in the world is a country based on immigration.

In any case, what's the difference between an Irish-born person you don't know getting this imaginary television and an immigrant you don't know?