Non National entitlements

K-9

Was watching Prime time tonight and Alan Dukes was talking about the Roma situation. They had not applied for work visas, despite around 3,000 Romanians already getting them since the start of the year.

Moore McDowell was saying it was unfair calling them welfare spongers as they can't claim welfare until they are here 2 years. Dukes said this was common knowledge, but I don't think so? Giving Asylum seekers houses and cars seems to be common knowledge!

There seems to be an anomaly too whereby because they are EU citizens they cannot claim asylum, wheras non EU immigrants can.

Therefor, Non EU immigrants are entitled to housing and vouchers but not Romanian or Bulgarians. They did not mention non nationals getting cars paid for them!

Anyway I'm confused and would like some facts.What are non EU asylum seekers entitled to?

What are Romanian and Bulgarian citizens entitled to?

And what are the rest of the EU citizens entitled to?

Fratton Fred

Asylum seekers cannot work until their request is accepted, therfore they get benefit by way of accomodation and a living allowance to cover the basics. Cars etc are not included in this as they do not need them. They have no where to go.

EU citizens need to obtain a PRSI number then, as far as I am aware, they are entitled to the same benefits as everyone else. I'm not sure if any exceptions were made to Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants.

EU citizens cannot claim asylum because their home country has been accceoted into the EU and it is therefore taken for granted that they have a reasonable democratic government and is free from persecution, therefore no citizens of that country would need to be claiming asylum anywhere.

ScottishDanny

Is the free car thing not just a myth anyway?

seamus

Seanies32 wrote:

Moore McDowell was saying it was unfair calling them welfare spongers as they can't claim welfare until they are here 2 years. Dukes said this was common knowledge, but I don't think so? Giving Asylum seekers houses and cars seems to be common knowledge!

No, it seems to be common myth.

People see black people (and I'm going to say black people because that where it starts) driving cars, talking on phones and moving into a house down the road, and the first thing they assume is that they are asylum seekers being given this stuff for free. Because of course, all black people are asylum seekers and are incapable of getting jobs and paying loans and rent, right? :rolleyes:

The simple of the matter here is that certain groups of immigrants get a minimum basic allowance, and have an entitlement to *housing*. This doesn't mean that they given a free house, this means that they get somewhere to live on temporary, non-ownership basis, so that they don't have to live on the street. That seems fairly reasonable to me. Even if someone is coming here under false pretences, I wouldn't want them living on the street while their case being heard.

It's the Irish bregrudgery thing again - "Everyone else is getting something and I'm not". Regardless of how much you don't want to believe it, the Irish look after their own first and foremost, and immigrants get some basics to tide them over. There's no such things as free cars and homes. If that were the case we'd all be getting fake passports and pretending to be immigrants :rolleyes:

Saint Ruth

Seanies32 wrote:

Therefor, Non EU immigrants are entitled to housing and vouchers but not Romanian or Bulgarians. They did not mention non nationals getting cars paid for them!

Anyway I'm confused and would like some facts.What are non EU asylum seekers entitled to?

What are Romanian and Bulgarian citizens entitled to?

And what are the rest of the EU citizens entitled to?

Asylum seekers are by definition non-EU nationals. EU citizens can't request asylum.

Now, EU citizens cannot get welfare unless they've worked in this country for 2 years. They have very few entitlements and it is (rightly) to stop welfare tourism.

Bulgarians/Rumanians are the worst off. They can't work nor can they apply for any sort of assistance.

Asylum seekers must live in gov. accomadation and only get 19 euros (?) a week.

Refugees get everything tha Irish people are entitled to.

Asylum seekers are not entitled to cars/phones.
However, of course, some of them do have cars and phones because they can of course buy them. (How do I know? I live near an asylum seeker camp and I see they have them and if they don't get them from the state, they must be buying them).

djpbarry

As far as I am aware, only a limited number of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals are entitled to work in Ireland. Quotas were imposed by the Irish government to discourage mass migration. But surely this goes against everything the EU stands for?

Supporters of this stance claim that if we open up our borders to Romania and Bulgaria, we will receive a huge influx of people from these nations, as we did from say, Poland. This is possible, but has the Polish community not contributed to our economy? In fact, it is my understanding that there is a shortage of labourers in this country, positions that could be filled by migrants from south-east Europe. No disrespect is implied to these peoples, as I am sure there are plenty of professionals in this region who could also make huge contributions to Irish society, given the opportunity.

djpbarry

Saint Ruth wrote:

Asylum seekers are not entitled to cars/phones.
However, of course, some of them do have cars and phones because they can of course buy them. (How do I know? I live near an asylum seeker camp and I see they have them and if they don't get them from the state, they must be buying them).

What exactly is your point Ruth? Should an asylum seeker's possessions be confiscated while their case is investigated? You cannot stop an individual from spending THEIR money. You also cannot assume that just because a person has money, they are not entitled to request asylum. Not all asylum seekers are poor - they may be fleeing their native country for a variety of reasons. If their case is fraudulent, it is highly unlikely that they will be granted asylum. We actually have very few refugees (that is, persons to whom asylum has been granted) in this country. For example, in 2005, just 966 people, less than one quarter of all people who sought asylum in Ireland in that year, were granted refugee status. Of that 966, less than half were granted refugee status by the first instance committee - the rest had to appeal (source: Irish Refugee Council).

Saint Ruth

djpbarry wrote:

... In fact, it is my understanding that there is a shortage of labourers in this country, positions that could be filled by migrants from south-east Europe.

Not at the moment. There has been a large number of redundancies in the construction industry recently...

The construction boom is over...

Saint Ruth

djpbarry wrote:

What exactly is your point Ruth? Should an asylum seeker's possessions be confiscated while their case is investigated? You cannot stop an individual from spending THEIR money.

Jez, take a chill pill.

I am just saying that -
That it's incorrect to say that the states buys them cars.
That it's incorrect to say they don't have cars.

I didn't have any other point than those 2 points.

They can buy airships for all I care...

ScottishDanny

They can buy airships for all I care...

Careful, next the Irish Daily Mail will be running a frontpage headline about Immigrants getting free zeppelins paid for by the taxpayer! :rolleyes: (and variations on the same story over the next few months).

djpbarry

Fair enough Ruth. Point taken. :cool:

But:

Saint Ruth wrote:

Not at the moment. There has been a large number of redundancies in the construction industry recently...

The construction boom is over...

I was actually referring to the agricultural sector, both here and in the UK. Having said that, I don't think farmers are going to need much help for anything if the weather continues as it has been!

K-9

ScottishDanny wrote:

Is the free car thing not just a myth anyway?

Yeah, but its amazing how many people believe it!

seamus wrote:

People see black people (and I'm going to say black people because that where it starts) driving cars, talking on phones and moving into a house down the road, and the first thing they assume is that they are asylum seekers being given this stuff for free. Because of course, all black people are asylum seekers and are incapable of getting jobs and paying loans and rent, right?

Yeah, sure there's no black EU citizens!

saint ruth wrote:

Asylum seekers must live in gov. accomadation and only get 19 euros (?) a week.

Asylum seekers are not entitled to cars/phones.
However, of course, some of them do have cars and phones because they can of course buy them. (How do I know? I live near an asylum seeker camp and I see they have them and if they don't get them from the state, they must be buying them).

Begs the question, if they only get €19 how do they have cars and phones?

djpbarry wrote:

As far as I am aware, only a limited number of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals are entitled to work in Ireland. Quotas were imposed by the Irish government to discourage mass migration. But surely this goes against everything the EU stands for?

Supporters of this stance claim that if we open up our borders to Romania and Bulgaria, we will receive a huge influx of people from these nations, as we did from say, Poland. This is possible, but has the Polish community not contributed to our economy?

We had the same debate about the Poles, Slovaks etc. in 2004. Loads of opposition then too and I think Ireland was one of only 3 countries to have no conditions. IMO the majority of people would say they have contributed to the economy, country etc. However I think the Romanians and Bulgarians where treated differently because they aren't as well educated/qualified (generally) and also with the economy slowing down it mightn't be a great idea for a big influx.

Unfair on them, definitely, but no other EU country has no restrictions on them and each country should have a right to put its own economic and social concerns first.

Fratton Fred

Seanies32 wrote:

Begs the question, if they only get €19 how do they have cars and phones?
.

because they all contacted someone by email before they came over, asking them for their bank account numbers so they could transfer over $20m dollars and give them half of it.

did you not get the mail?

K-9

Fratton Fred wrote:

because they all contacted someone by email before they came over, asking them for their bank account numbers so they could transfer over $20m dollars and give them half of it.

did you not get the mail?

. Get those Viagra ones too. As Jimmy Carr said, 8 of them are from my girlfriend, but I really got worried when 2 where from my Ma!:D

sceptre

Seanies32 wrote:

Begs the question, if they only get €19 how do they have cars and phones?

It's entirely possible for someone to be fleeing their home country due to persecution but at the same time not being personally impoverished.

K-9

djpbarry wrote:

Not all asylum seekers are poor - they may be fleeing their native country for a variety of reasons. If their case is fraudulent, it is highly unlikely that they will be granted asylum. We actually have very few refugees (that is, persons to whom asylum has been granted) in this country. For example, in 2005, just 966 people, less than one quarter of all people who sought asylum in Ireland in that year, were granted refugee status. Of that 966, less than half were granted refugee status by the first instance committee - the rest had to appeal (source: Irish Refugee Council).

Kind of puts the so called problem into perspective.

sceptre wrote:

It's entirely possible for someone to be fleeing their home country due to persecution but at the same time not being personally impoverished.

Off course.

J.S. Pill

ScottishDanny wrote:

Careful, next the Irish Daily Mail will be running a frontpage headline about Immigrants getting free zeppelins paid for by the taxpayer! :rolleyes: (and variations on the same story over the next few months).

What!? they're getting free Zeppelins! And here's me walking on the ground like a chump

Zombrex

sceptre wrote:

It's entirely possible for someone to be fleeing their home country due to persecution but at the same time not being personally impoverished.

As is probably more often the case, since during times of repression it tends to be the educated middle classes that are targeted. Genuine asylum seekers tend to be from professions such as doctors or teachers, more likely than not have some money.

Ironically if someone seems an asylum seeker with a mobile phone or a car they are more likely to be a genuine seeker fleeing persecution, than an economic migrant.

This fact seems to have been largely lost of those who feel resentful towards them.

MadsL

for the last time (hopefully)
Foreign nationals not NON-nationals

Everyone (99.9999%) has a nationality ffs :rolleyes:

MadsL

MadsL wrote:

for the last time (hopefully)
Foreign nationals not NON-nationals

Everyone (99.9999%) has a nationality ffs :rolleyes:

Agreed..

non-nationals = stateless persons, more than 0.0001% though according to UNHCR
a couple of links for some bedtime reading if really bored
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_person
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.htm?tbl=PUBL&id=4444d3c128

K-9

Could you make that a little clearer lads

Agreed though

Lissavane

When was the term, in the the title of this thread, "Non National" invented?

I'm an Irish citizen and live in Ireland. One of my friends is French and lives in Ireland. She describes herself as a "foreigner" here.

If I were to move to France I would term myself a "foreigner" there.

Check the dictionary.

We're getting lost in a quagmire of political correctness. What's worse, as in the case I cite, it's political correctness without a cause, need or demand.

seamus

I'd say someone in the media decided to start using it and they all cottoned on, or more likely a politician said it once by accident and it became the de facto term.

Within the context of talking about immigration, it's easy to see the link between "non-national" and "not an Irish national", but in literal terms indeed it's the wrong phrase. It should be reserved for talking about the Turkish in Germany.

Zombrex

Lissavane wrote:

We're getting lost in a quagmire of political correctness. What's worse, as in the case I cite, it's political correctness without a cause, need or demand.

Not sure it has anything to do with political correctness. To me non-national sounds "worse" then foreigner, because the terms "non-national" or "foreign national", implies someone is living and working here, rather than just visiting on like a holiday.

Saint Ruth

Lissavane wrote:

We're getting lost in a quagmire of political correctness. What's worse, as in the case I cite, it's political correctness without a cause, need or demand.

I think you're completely correct.

"Non-national" was dreamt up because I presume it was thought "foreigner" was not "inclusive"...

Typically for the PC world, the new term ends up being more offensive than the original term. No foreigner likes being called a "non-national". They are nationals, they're Swedish or German or Indian nationals.

Most papers have started to use "foreign national" or "non-Irish national"...

I don't like "non-Irish national" because it's another bend over backward not to even remotely offend anyone.

Call a spade a spade. "Foreigner" is a good enough...

K-9

Wicknight wrote:

rather than just visiting on like a holiday.

You mean a tourist:D

Saint Ruth

And I forgot the height of PC, the lofty pinnacle of fair-trade organic-vegan-tofu-eating touchy feeliness, that of calling foreigners "Newcomers"...

Delboy05

djpbarry wrote:

What exactly is your point Ruth? Should an asylum seeker's possessions be confiscated while their case is investigated? You cannot stop an individual from spending THEIR money. You also cannot assume that just because a person has money, they are not entitled to request asylum. Not all asylum seekers are poor - they may be fleeing their native country for a variety of reasons. If their case is fraudulent, it is highly unlikely that they will be granted asylum. We actually have very few refugees (that is, persons to whom asylum has been granted) in this country. For example, in 2005, just 966 people, less than one quarter of all people who sought asylum in Ireland in that year, were granted refugee status. Of that 966, less than half were granted refugee status by the first instance committee - the rest had to appeal (source: Irish Refugee Council).

we may have very few here who were granted asylum, but practically every asylum seeker who arrived here is still here. The vast majority had a baby before the constitutional referendum took place and beat the system that way. More married irish citizens before the rules were changed there also.
You only have to look at the deportation figures to see that we've only sent less than a thousand home at most. yeah, a large amount have left and gone to the Uk etc before their cases were heard, but the vast majority who entered the asylum system are still here by hook or by crook.
Our asylum system is a joke and has been abused for years.

Zombrex

Saint Ruth wrote:

And I forgot the height of PC, the lofty pinnacle of fair-trade organic-vegan-tofu-eating touchy feeliness, that of calling foreigners "Newcomers"...

Instead of what? Sponging bastards

Zombrex

Delboy05 wrote:

You only have to look at the deportation figures to see that we've only sent less than a thousand home at most.

Clearly you haven't been looking at the deportation figures then, since we have actually deported 2,268 as if 2004, and no doubt the number is higher as of 2007.

Where exactly do you get your figures?

Delboy05

Wicknight wrote:

Clearly you haven't been looking at the deportation figures then, since we have actually deported 2,268 as if 2004, and no doubt the number is higher as of 2007.

Where exactly do you get your figures?

did'nt actually use any figures!!!!
Every time a large deportation takes place, it makes the newspapers. Bar the recent Roma debacle, when was the last deportation to Nigeria, for example, that you heard of?
2,268 is a very small number of deportations when you consider that we've had 50-60,000 asylum claims at least since 1997, and the number of those unsuccessful at the 1st stage has been contanttly over the 90% mark.