Rejecting some myths about Immigrants

Tha Gopher

oscarBravo wrote:

Nope, no mass immigration happening here. Try harder.

With all due respect, cant you just debate without acting like a child? I would think 10% of the population in a short time period was mass enough for you.

oscarBravo

Tha Gopher wrote:

With all due respect, cant you just debate without acting like a child?

In fairness, the point I was responding to was never going to win any debating society awards.

Tha Gopher wrote:

I would think 10% of the population in a short time period was mass enough for you.

Would 8% over a slightly longer period still count as "mass"? 4% over longer? Really, all I'm seeing is a lot of arm-waving, and an anonymous poster refusing to back up her claims because of fears of intimidation. Not sure exactly how that works.

fly_agaric

Oscarbravo wrote:

Would 8% over a slightly longer period still count as "mass"? 4% over longer?

Why can't people who are happy with Ireland's immigration rate and think it's great have the honesty and courage to admit that it is, you know, very high when compared with other nations which aren't bordering a war zone or something.

Here is a small article commenting on Ireland's immigration rate -from before the accession states joined the EU no less!

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_30/b3893085_mz054.htm

"To Americans, the number of immigrants to Ireland may sound low. According to the 2002 Irish census -- the first time the question of nationality ever appeared -- there were 47,500 registered immigrants, among them 18,000 returning Irish. But for a country of only 3.9 million, the figure is huge. On a per-capita basis, it's more than four times the immigration rate of the U.S. And the official data underestimate the true scale of immigration."

oscarBravo

fly_agaric wrote:

Why can't people who are happy with Ireland's immigration rate and think it's great have the honesty and courage to admit that it is, you know, very high when compared with other nations which aren't bordering a war zone or something.

Leaving aside the subtle insinuations of dishonesty and cowardice, I can accept that we have a relatively high rate of immigration. I also seem to remember that the general population trend in this country was downwards between the 1840s and the 1990s.

fly_agaric

oscarBravo wrote:

Leaving aside the subtle insinuations of dishonesty and cowardice

The dishonesty is in a good cause I suppose...
The fear provoked when people criticise "mass immigration" is rational but pronouncing that it is not really "mass immigration" [as if changing the language used can affect peoples' thoughts and perceptions somehow] is pointless IMO.

Zambia

OPENROAD wrote:

So the opposite of Finsbury Park and Kilburn then??

I have no idea what those places are I think Finsbury Park has a Radical Mosque? If you mean the whole areas ont habited by any natives

Gobán Saor

InFront wrote:

Apart from making a reasonably interesting statement about how Ireland has become to Nigeria what Boston was to the Irish (relatively speaking I suppose), you haven't really said anything interesting about a possible problem. ireland takes its fair share of Nigerians. So what? British cities like London and Birmingham once took lots and lots of Irish and Indians, was that immigration "unwarranted" because of its volume?

No, it wasn't unwarranted because Irish and Indian immigration to the UK was perfectly legal and in accordance with the laws of the host country. Indeed, in the 1950's and 60's, the UK positively encouraged "mass immigration" from the former colonies to fill acute labour shortages. But they chose to do that - they didn't have it imposed upon them.
In our case, the Nigerian asylum seeker phenomenon is a blatantly obvious and illegal abuse of the provisions we have put in place for genuine asylum seekers. Big difference.

InFront wrote:

Do you think people emigrate for fun? For social welfare?

No, people generally emigrate to make a better life for themselves and their families. Nothing at all wrong with that - as long as they do so in accordance with the laws of the country to which they are emigrating. I think that's a pretty reasonable expectation on behalf of the host country.

InFront wrote:

This does allude to a problem, and that was an old problem of Ireland's asylum legislation being open to abuse by some immigrants.
But again, simply pointing out that Nigeria has a lot of asylum seekers doesn't mean that they're scamming the Irish Government. It simply means that Nigeria is quite a messed ip place, I doubt anyone is disputing that.

The volume alone mightn't prove it but the surrounding circumstances are hardly capable of giving rise to any other conclusion. Again, I repeat - more Nigerians seek asylum in Ireland than in any other country on the planet. That's suspicious in itself. Then consider that in order to do so legally, they must and do claim that Ireland is the first safe country they arrived in on fleeing Nigeria.:rolleyes: And we have no direct transport links to/from Nigeria. I still can't find anybody who can put forward an explanation for this other than massive, systematic fraudulent claims.

InFront wrote:

Anyway, as you did point out yourself, asylum has declined rapidly since the new legislation, so I'm not sure what your problem with the asylum process is at the minute?

Agreed, there has been a reduction but even at 1200 odd per year we are still the world's leading destination for Nigerian asylum seekers - it defies all logic to suggest that this isn't fraudulent

OPENROAD

Zambia232 wrote:

I have no idea what those places are I think Finsbury Park has a Radical Mosque? If you mean the whole areas ont habited by any natives

I was replying to a post, but Finsbury park in general has a number of Irish pubs, also still quite an Irish area, with Irish flags hanging out from peoples homes, to be honest I don't have any problem with this, but areas like Kilburn and Finsbury Park have a quite an Irish feel to them, it has been argued, that people should fully integrate here, and should be Irish FIRST, and certain areas don't have an Irish feel to them anymore.

OPENROAD

Gob&#225 wrote: »

No, it wasn't unwarranted because Irish and Indian immigration to the UK was perfectly legal and in accordance with the laws of the host country. Indeed, in the 1950's and 60's, the UK positively encouraged "mass immigration" from the former colonies to fill acute labour shortages. But they chose to do that - they didn't have it imposed upon them.


So you have no problem with immigration from other EU countries?


In our case, the Nigerian asylum seeker phenomenon is a blatantly obvious and illegal abuse of the provisions we have put in place for genuine asylum seekers. Big difference.

Yes so fault is with Irish govt then? it is obvious they have not been able to deal with numbers coming in and processing applications.

No, people generally emigrate to make a better life for themselves and their families. Nothing at all wrong with that - as long as they do so in accordance with the laws of the country to which they are emigrating. I think that's a pretty reasonable expectation on behalf of the host country.

Totally agree, this is why I think you will agree the US should really have sent the illeagl Irish packing.


The volume alone mightn't prove it but the surrounding circumstances are hardly capable of giving rise to any other conclusion. Again, I repeat - more Nigerians seek asylum in Ireland than in any other country on the planet. That's suspicious in itself. Then consider that in order to do so legally, they must and do claim that Ireland is the first safe country they arrived in on fleeing Nigeria.:rolleyes: And we have no direct transport links to/from Nigeria. I still can't find anybody who can put forward an explanation for this other than massive, systematic fraudulent claims.

But not all Nigerians here are asylum seekers are they?

Agreed, there has been a reduction but even at 1200 odd per year we are still the world's leading destination for Nigerian asylum seekers - it defies all logic to suggest that this isn't fraudulent

Suppose an English speaking country might have something to do with it.

Gobán Saor

OPENROAD wrote:

Suppose an English speaking country might have something to do with it.

Well, fair dues for grasping at straws - I'll give you that! It is however, probably the least convincing argument ever made on boards.ie

Ok then, purely for the sake of argument, let's assume Nigerian asylum seeking is confined to English speaking countries only. There's us - 5 odd million. The USA - almost 300 odd million. The UK itself - 65 odd million. Canada - 17 million, Australia - 16 million, New Zealand 5 million, that's about 400 million native speakers of English. Plus South Africa, the commonwealth Carribbean, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe all of which would have large English speaking populations. And of course India with a conservative estimate of 100 million English speakers. Singapore, Malaysia Pakistan, I could go on........ Still doesn't explain why we get a disproportionate amount of asylum seekers from Nigeria. (40% in 2000, 12% in 2005) Nor does it explain how they get here without passing through any other safe country. Their asylum seeking is fraudulent unless they arrive here directly.

BTW, Nigeria has over 500 native languages - English is a native language for about 3% of the population.

Zambia

OPENROAD wrote:

I was replying to a post, but Finsbury park in general has a number of Irish pubs, also still quite an Irish area, with Irish flags hanging out from peoples homes, to be honest I don't have any problem with this, but areas like Kilburn and Finsbury Park have a quite an Irish feel to them, it has been argued, that people should fully integrate here, and should be Irish FIRST, and certain areas don't have an Irish feel to them anymore.

Oh I see actually I agree totally.... Irish in England or anywhere should not try to turn areas into little Dublins/Cork etc...but thats just my opinion.

OPENROAD

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Well, fair dues for grasping at straws - I'll give you that! It is however, probably the least convincing argument ever made on boards.ie

Ok then, purely for the sake of argument, let's assume Nigerian asylum seeking is confined to English speaking countries only. There's us - 5 odd million. The USA - almost 300 odd million. The UK itself - 65 odd million. Canada - 17 million, Australia - 16 million, New Zealand 5 million, that's about 400 million native speakers of English. Plus South Africa, the commonwealth Carribbean, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe all of which would have large English speaking populations. And of course India with a conservative estimate of 100 million English speakers. Singapore, Malaysia Pakistan, I could go on........ Still doesn't explain why we get a disproportionate amount of asylum seekers from Nigeria. (40% in 2000, 12% in 2005) Nor does it explain how they get here without passing through any other safe country. Their asylum seeking is fraudulent unless they arrive here directly.

BTW, Nigeria has over 500 native languages - English is a native language for about 3% of the population.

It was meant tongue in cheek to be honest.

The whole argument seems to be now focused on the Nigerians. Not all Nigerians here are refuges. This seems not to have been recognised, some people here obviously have issues with Nigerians. Irelands economic growth is a huge draw for would be refugees, be it bogus or non bogus, also tighter controls in other EU countries and the fact that some are smuggled in are also other factors. Obviously illegal immigrants should be deported and those who do not have a valid claim for refugee status should also be deported. Also really wish the US would deport all illegal Irish too.

InFront

Angelique wrote:

Muslims in Britian...struggle against the country they were born and bred in, they dig their heels in on their own terms and aspire to be ruled under Sharia Law.

This has little to do with culture or religion, so it's a different issue. I doubt that any Muslim in Britain is angry because "his culture" says so, it's a political issue. I presume they don't like belonging to a country that harms people they identify with, and feel like disassociating from it on those terms - just like Irish people working there during the 1970s and 1980s at the height of the conflict in Northern Ireland would not have aspired to being Anglophiles.

The volume alone mightn't prove it but the surrounding circumstances are hardly capable of giving rise to any other conclusion. Again, I repeat - more Nigerians seek asylum in Ireland than in any other country on the planet. That's suspicious in itself. T

What country takes the most Irish emigrants as it stands? Are those emigrants automatically fraudsters?

Gobán Saor

InFront wrote:

What country takes the most Irish emigrants as it stands? Are those emigrants automatically fraudsters?

I don't know. I suspect its the UK. They would not be fraudsters as EU citizens can emigrate freely and legally to other EU states. There is a distinction between immigrants and asylum seekers. The UNHCR statistics confirm there are no Irish nationals seeking asylum elsewhere in the world.
On the other hand, there are many asylum seekers into Ireland. But if they arrive in Ireland via another "safe" country they are obliged to seek asylum in that country. If they fail to do so, their asylum claim is fraudulent. I'm still wondering how so many Nigerians get here without passing through safe third countries when there are no direct transport links between the two countries. That is why I believe there is a massive incidence of fruadulent claims.

bonkey

Gob&#225 wrote: »

In our case, the Nigerian asylum seeker phenomenon is a blatantly obvious and illegal abuse of the provisions we have put in place for genuine asylum seekers.

Just one question...

what have asylum seekers got to do with immigration? They're two entirely seperate topics, unless by immigration you mean "foreigners coming to our country" rather than "immigration".

bonkey

Gob&#225 wrote: »

But if they arrive in Ireland via another "safe" country they are obliged to seek asylum in that country. If they fail to do so, their asylum claim is fraudulent.

There's no law anywhere that says that.

Unfortunately, I can't prove a negative. You can, however, prove your claim to be true.

So....care to provide the legal basis for this claim of yours?

Iktomi

He is indeed correct, to seek asylum within europe you are required to do so in the first european country you reach.

See dublin accord:
http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp?english/easyl/evemfar.html

Kimbot

Hopefully I can share a bit of insight into these issues. I spend 3 years working in Immigration and dealing with immigrants on a daliy basis so I know the cold hard facts and all.

dochasach wrote:

Urban, Suburban and Rural Myths about Immigrants to Ireland

---

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."

Semi-true: If you have a claim for asylum they will house you and pay for your food/accom etc as you are not allowed work unless you are given permission to remain in the country.

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

Also semi-true: A few years ago this was the case that if you were the parent of an irish born child you could apply for citizenship on the basis of that. However it is far from automatic and not every applicant was sucessful!! Now what can happen by irish law it that only the IBC(irish born child) can remain here and the parents can be deported so they would take their children with them!!

Myth #3: "Immigrants caused the housing bubble."

In a word its not true but the rental cause by even EU citizens working here has attributed to this!!

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

This is untrue: It is worked on a case by case basis and if you break the ruls and conditions surrounding the application then you can be deported.

Myth #5: "Immigrants get automatic citizenship by living in Ireland for 5 years."

No but they can apply for citizenship after being resident here for 5 years and only if their asylum claims have not being fully processed through all channels!!

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.

Not ture!! Every one in this country that owns a car is contributing to this equally. Being a driver means you have to learn for the rest of your time while you own a car. Adaptation is the key but when they influx of foreign cars started a few years ago there were alot more accidents as they adjusted to the rules and regulations on the roads.

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

This myth would have been through 4 years ago but not today!! The reason our hospitals are overcrowded now are failed promises by the people we elect!!

Other points made in the thread about ripping up passports are true!! They throw them in bins etc so it makes it next to impossible to put them back on the flights/boats to their country of origin!!

90% of the cases I dealt with were 100% bogus and immigration is not too serious a problem in this country. I had people that came in for an interview claiming they were deaf and dumb and had to write everything, upon going out for a cigerette the said person was chatting away on their mobile in full english no problem at all!!

It is true that alot fo scams here are involving foreign nationals but look at the crimelords here aswell!! They are irish and don't get called the names that some small time foreign criminal gets called!!
As a society we should try and accept people that are genuine and help them adapt into our society but in reality they don't want to adapt they just want to be left alone!!

People also have a misconception about polish/latvian etc that are here working legally and helping our economy out!!

All that should be said here is people have to keep an open mind and realise that some of these people are genuine and really do need our help!!

Zambia

jonny24ie wrote:

Other points made in the thread about ripping up passports are true!! They throw them in bins etc so it makes it next to impossible to put them back on the flights/boats to their country of origin!!

People also have a misconception about polish/latvian etc that are here working legally and helping our economy out!!

On the first piont cheers I knew it was something like that...

On te second I dont get you could you expand are the Eastern Europeans not helping our Economy?

Kimbot

Iktomi wrote:

He is indeed correct, to seek asylum within europe you are required to do so in the first european country you reach.

See dublin accord:
http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp?english/easyl/evemfar.html

Its actually to seek asylum in the first SAFE country within europe!!
Alot of asylum seekers go through a hell of a lot od safe countries just to get to Ireland!! Their destination is Ireland the whole way through and there is nothing that is going to stop them really!!

Kimbot

Zambia232 wrote:

On the first piont cheers I knew it was something like that...

On te second I dont get you could you expand are the Eastern Europeans not helping our Economy?

Yes I mean that the eastern europeans are helping our economy and are working legally etc but alot of people in this country think they aren't!!

Zambia

Cheers that all cleared up good post

bonkey

Iktomi wrote:

He is indeed correct, to seek asylum within europe you are required to do so in the first european country you reach.

No, he's not correct.

Firstly, what was claimed was that if you come from another (unspecified) safe country your claim is fraudulent. This is not the case.

Secondly, the Dublin Accords are far more complex than a simple "you get sent back to the first country". There are a large number of ifs, buts and maybes in there.

Check article 4, for example, which says what happens if you have family already granted asylum.
Check article 7 which outlines what happens if you pass through airports in transit.
Check Article 8 which says that what happens if you can't identify the specific nation you believe should handle the case.

And note that in not one case does it make the application fraudulent as was claimed.

Iktomi

bonkey wrote:

No, he's not correct.

Firstly, what was claimed was that if you come from another (unspecified) safe country your claim is fraudulent. This is not the case.

Secondly, the Dublin Accords are far more complex than a simple "you get sent back to the first country". There are a large number of ifs, buts and maybes in there.

Check article 4, for example, which says what happens if you have family already granted asylum.
Check article 7 which outlines what happens if you pass through airports in transit.
Check Article 8 which says that what happens if you can't identify the specific nation you believe should handle the case.

And note that in not one case does it make the application fraudulent as was claimed.

You are indeed correct I stand corrected having indeed oversimplify the agreement.

An interesting article on the matter is here and shows the system works.
http://www.asylumlaw.org/firstaid/dublin_ii/

Gobán Saor

bonkey wrote:

No, he's not correct.

Firstly, what was claimed was that if you come from another (unspecified) safe country your claim is fraudulent. This is not the case.

Secondly, the Dublin Accords are far more complex than a simple "you get sent back to the first country". There are a large number of ifs, buts and maybes in there.

Check article 4, for example, which says what happens if you have family already granted asylum.
Check article 7 which outlines what happens if you pass through airports in transit.
Check Article 8 which says that what happens if you can't identify the specific nation you believe should handle the case.

And note that in not one case does it make the application fraudulent as was claimed.

Look, you're clutching at pedantic straws here. Any law has ifs, buts and maybes. Even the law against murder has get-outs such as self-defence, insanity, non-insane automatism, provocation etc. But, generally, with some limited exceptions, my statement is true. And it is unlikelihood to the point of ridiculousness to suggest that all (or even a majority of) applicants come within those limited exceptions.

bonkey

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Look, you're clutching at pedantic straws here.

This seems to be becoming your mantra for people who disagree with you.

But, generally, with some limited exceptions, my statement is true.

The number of countries who are not party to the Dublin accords vastly outnumbers those who are....but you never limited yourself to that small minority of countries, referring instead to "another safe country".

Furthermore, it doesn't make the claim fraudulent, but you claimed it did.

If you are claiming that these are "limited exceptions", then I think I can understand what your claims of pedantry are based on.

And it is unlikelihood to the point of ridiculousness to suggest that all (or even a majority of) applicants come within those limited exceptions.

I haven't made any such suggestion.

I just noted the inaccuracies in your claims - your interchangeable use fo the terms "inmmigrant" and "asylum seeker" and your inaccurate claims regarding what the situation is with people who turn up in Ireland requesting asylum.

If you want to start claiming that "the vast majority" still fall under the argument you were trying to make...I'd ask you for evidence.

Gobán Saor

bonkey wrote:

This seems to be becoming your mantra for people who disagree with you.

I think in any meaningful discussions, generalised statement that are largely true but with limited specific exceptions are pretty well acceptable. [Example: the statement "deliberate unlawful killing is murder" is true in most circumstances and quoting the few circumscribed and limited exceptions doesn't negate it's essential correctness]

bonkey wrote:

The number of countries who are not party to the Dublin accords vastly outnumbers those who are....but you never limited yourself to that small minority of countries, referring instead to "another safe country".

If it makes you happy, I can use the formula "another safe country which is party to the Dublin II agreement" but does this really achieve anything or even assist clarity and understanding? In practise given our geographic location, most transit countries will be Dublin II signatories. Anyway, the fact that you are basing your argument on such technicalities speaks volumes.

bonkey wrote:

I just noted the inaccuracies in your claims - your interchangeable use fo the terms "inmmigrant" and "asylum seeker" and your inaccurate claims regarding what the situation is with people who turn up in Ireland requesting asylum.

On the contrary, I am extremely precise in my use of language in all my posts. Partly because it tends to prevent being misrepresented by other posters. Although sadly this does not work in all cases.......... I have always and carefully drawn a distinction between legal immigration (which I support) and illegal immigration (including bogus asylum seeking) which I don't. I am well aware of the common tendency to lump the two together and I carefully and particularly avoid doing this.

bonkey wrote:

Furthermore, it doesn't make the claim fraudulent, but you claimed it did.

With regard to asylum applications, an applicant who has transited through a safe country (OK, I better specify a safe Dublin II signatory country, seeing as we're being picky:rolleyes: ) either:
A) Claims asylum (legally) on the basis of one of the limited exceptions.
Claims asylum without relying on such an exception (in which case s/he is sent right back to the third country, so this doesn't tend to happen)
C) Lies about how they got into Ireland.

As option B is pointless we can assume that the vast majority of applications are either option A or option C. Therefore, if option A is not applicable, then the application is fraudulent.

bonkey wrote:

If you want to start claiming that "the vast majority" still fall under the argument you were trying to make...I'd ask you for evidence.

Otherwise known as the Bart Simpson defence argument - "I didn't do it; you didn't see me; you can't prove it." Look we're not in a court of law here- I don't have to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt - I'm putting forward a set of facts and drawing reasonable conclusions from them. The facts start with unchallengeable evidence of a vastly disproportionate number of Nigerian asylum seekers in Ireland. I have yet to hear a more plausible interpretation of those facts than the one I put forward.

bonkey

Gob&#225 wrote: »

If it makes you happy, I can use the formula "another safe country which is party to the Dublin II agreement" but does this really achieve anything or even assist clarity and understanding?

It prevents misunderstanding amongst those who don't know who is covered by the agreement, especially when people like yourself claim that (and I quote) Their asylum seeking is fraudulent unless they arrive here directly.

Anyway, the fact that you are basing your argument on such technicalities speaks volumes.

My argument is that you're being fast and loose with the facts to suit yourself. Nothing more.

I'd also like to note that you still haven't addressed my other point and explained what all of this focus about Nigerian asylum seekers has to do with immigration and immigrants in the first place.

On the contrary, I am extremely precise in my use of language in all my posts. Partly because it tends to prevent being misrepresented by other posters.

Then when you said Their asylum seeking is fraudulent unless they arrive here directly why isn't that what you meant? Direct is a pretty unambiguous term and yet apparently its not really what you meant.

This statement doesn't need misrepresentation. It is inaccurate.

If your argument is so strong, and you are taking care not to be misrepresented, then how is it that you're stating things that are simply not true?

A) Claims asylum (legally) on the basis of one of the limited exceptions.
Claims asylum without relying on such an exception (in which case s/he is sent right back to the third country, so this doesn't tend to happen)
C) Lies about how they got into Ireland.

As option B is pointless we can assume that the vast majority of applications are either option A or option C. Therefore, if option A is not applicable, then the application is fraudulent.

And given that those who take option C will tend to lie by claiming option A...where does that leave us?

It leaves us with not knowing how many are legally claiming option A, and how many are fraudulently doing so.

Agreed?

Otherwise known as the Bart Simpson defence argument - "I didn't do it; you didn't see me; you can't prove it."

Actually no. Its known as the manner in which law operates - guilt must be proven.

Look we're not in a court of law here

No, we're discussing how the law should operate with regards to asylum seekers.

You don't get to just throw out the notion of proof-of-guilt because we're only talking about the system rather than being in it....unless you're suggesting that the system should not operate on such a basis.

Are you making such a suggestion?

Or are you just making some tangential point that you accept the law can;t operate on this basis, but still think its important that we believe that a lot of them are lying their way into the country despite our not actually being able to prove it?

I don't want to misrepresent you, but its not clear what your point is.

Its even less clear what your point about immigrants is, considering all of this has to do with asylum seekers.

I have yet to hear a more plausible interpretation of those facts than the one I put forward.

Interpretation? Your now-corrected interpretation seems to boil down to the notion that they're either legal or they're lying...and the suggestion that there being so many of them it must mean something.

InFront

Gob&#225 wrote: »

On the other hand, there are many asylum seekers into Ireland. But if they arrive in Ireland via another "safe" country they are obliged to seek asylum in that country. If they fail to do so, their asylum claim is fraudulent.

No it is not. This says nothing about the nature of their asylum claim whatsoever. All it says is that they are applying for asylum in a place where they are likely to be accepted.
If you were a genuine asylum seeker, would you seek asylum from danger in a society that was likely to accept and understand your problem, or one who was likely to refuse you application?

Just because someone has a genuine asylum plea, doesn't mean they will automatically get accepted everywhere. You really haven't shown that Nigerian asylum seekers are engaging in fraud. By all accounts, Nigeria is a very messy place to be.

Gobán Saor

bonkey wrote:

It prevents misunderstanding amongst those who don't know who is covered by the agreement, especially when people like yourself claim that (and I quote) Their asylum seeking is fraudulent unless they arrive here directly.


My argument is that you're being fast and loose with the facts to suit yourself. Nothing more.

No, I'm not. I'm dealing with a controversial issue in normal conversational style, not writing a legal submission. Inevitably that means that reasonable implications, exclusions and exceptions are read into what is written. Unless you want every sentence on boards.ie written as if it were an act of parliament you're going to have to put up with that.

bonkey wrote:

I'd also like to note that you still haven't addressed my other point and explained what all of this focus about Nigerian asylum seekers has to do with immigration and immigrants in the first place.

Go right back to post number one in this thread. The OP in line number 1 of myth number 1 speaks about the benefits afforded to asylum seekers. That's where asylum seekers got linked to immigration - I have simply been responding to the arguments arising from that. And I have been particularly careful to distinguish the two (separate) matters.

bonkey wrote:

Then when you said Their asylum seeking is fraudulent unless they arrive here directly why isn't that what you meant? Direct is a pretty unambiguous term and yet apparently its not really what you meant.

As I said, if you want to be pedantic, feel free to read the phrase "subject to the limited number of exceptions in the Dublin Convention" every time I mention the word "direct" Must we go through this again?

bonkey wrote:

This statement doesn't need misrepresentation. It is inaccurate.

As I said above...... repeat as appropriate

bonkey wrote:

If your argument is so strong, and you are taking care not to be misrepresented, then how is it that you're stating things that are simply not true?

As I said above...... repeat as appropriate

bonkey wrote:

And given that those who take option C will tend to lie by claiming option A...where does that leave us?

It leaves us with not knowing how many are legally claiming option A, and how many are fraudulently doing so.

Agreed?

Yes, but we can apply common sense and we can listen to those who have actual experience of dealing with asylum seekers.

bonkey wrote:

Actually no. Its known as the manner in which law operates - guilt must be proven.

No, we're discussing how the law should operate with regards to asylum seekers.

You don't get to just throw out the notion of proof-of-guilt because we're only talking about the system rather than being in it....unless you're suggesting that the system should not operate on such a basis.

I made some suggestions about how the law should operate in post number 56 in this thread. Asylum claims are a civil matter so "proof beyond reasonable doubt" is not appropriate - the normal civil standard of proof on the balance of probablities applies. In discussing the matter on boards.ie, it is normal to give opinions or impressions. We are not normally required to prove them to a legal standard.

bonkey wrote:

Or are you just making some tangential point that you accept the law can;t operate on this basis, but still think its important that we believe that a lot of them are lying their way into the country despite our not actually being able to prove it?

Actually, I do believe precisely that. There are lots of things I believe without being able to prove them to a legal standard.

bonkey wrote:

I don't want to misrepresent you, but its not clear what your point is.

Its even less clear what your point about immigrants is, considering all of this has to do with asylum seekers.

I'm not really making any point about immigrants. As long as they are legal, I've no difficulty with them whatsoever and they're welcome to come here.

bonkey wrote:

Interpretation? Your now-corrected interpretation seems to boil down to the notion that they're either legal or they're lying...and the suggestion that there being so many of them it must mean something.

No. But does it not seem the tiniest little bit odd that such a disproportionate number come here?