Asylum Seekers in Ireland

Creagh Caper

A quick question that I'm sure has probably been debated before.

As far as i understand things, when a person is seeking asylum, they are supposed to go the nearest safest country (please let me know if this is not the case). How then, in Ireland, are there so many Nigerians seeking asylum here???

Dr Galen

how many are there?

GuanYin

Indeed, how many are there?

Do you mean Nigerians you see, or do you have figures for asylum seekers?

Do you know the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker?

Mena

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html should provide some detail, Psi's question(s) remain valid though

lostexpectation

the world isn't perfect.. SHOCK!

Creagh Caper

psi wrote: »

Indeed, how many are there?

Do you mean Nigerians you see, or do you have figures for asylum seekers?

Do you know the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker?

thanks very much for that response psi.

djpbarry

Creagh Caper wrote: »

thanks very much for that response psi.

So you don't have any figures then?

bartholomewbinn

Why are there Nigerian refugees in Ireland at all?

• There is no civil war, major unrest in Nigeria at the present time. So why refugees?
• There are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland; therefore they have to come through a third country.
• If they are asylum seekers /refugees why do they not seek asylum/refuge in the first safe country they landed in?

I am not referring to students or people here on work visas etc. (people that are legally here) only to people who have no valid reason to be here.

GuanYin

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/the-asylum-process-in-ireland/applying_for_refugee_status_in_ireland

The process for applying for refugee status in Ireland.

I think people are very mixed up and don't really understand the "port of call" thing

lostexpectation

that after hours thread has attracted professional 'asking stupid questions they already know the answer to' types

mike4819

Creagh Caper wrote: »

A quick question that I'm sure has probably been debated before.

As far as i understand things, when a person is seeking asylum, they are supposed to go the nearest safest country (please let me know if this is not the case). How then, in Ireland, are there so many Nigerians seeking asylum here???

1. Simple. Someone, somewhere (Brussels, Or at the last meeting of the bilderdirgers, whatever), decided that in order for the advancement of the "New World Order" Europe must become a borderless region where distinct and separate cultures must atrophy and die. A good way to do this is to import hundreds of thousands of immigrants from outside the european sphere who"haven't a clue".
2. The Nigerians know a good thing when they see it!

So cheer up "Eire", You're well on the road of no return. To hell with history and culture and your own people and ancestors. You're making David Rockefeller very happy. After all it is in the name of "PROGRESS"

Croc

They are obliged to seek asylum in the "First" European Union country the arrive in.


Also until recently there we no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland.


Hope that answers you question Creagh

GuanYin

Croc wrote: »

They are obliged to seek asylum in the "First" European Union country the arrive in.


Also until recently there we no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland.


Hope that answers you question Creagh

It doesn't because it's wrong.

The 1996 Dublin convention is what you're looking at here and it merely dictates which member state is responsible for processing the asylum request, the obligation isn't with the refugee at all. And this is only envoked if it can be proven that the asylum seeker crossed through another member state.

In any case, Article 6 clearly states that the "first port" requirement is void if the asylum seeker has been living in the member state where they seek asylum for longer than 6 months. So many Nigerians may have entered Ireland, waited 6 months and then applied.

Croc

psi wrote: »

It doesn't because it's wrong.

The 1996 Dublin convention is what you're looking at here and it merely dictates which member state is responsible for processing the asylum request, the obligation isn't with the refugee at all. And this is only envoked if it can be proven that the asylum seeker crossed through another member state.

In any case, Article 6 clearly states that the "first port" requirement is void if the asylum seeker has been living in the member state where they seek asylum for longer than 6 months. So many Nigerians may have entered Ireland, waited 6 months and then applied.

I don't think that was the point of the question being asked by the op, not that i am disagreeing with what you say.

johnnyskeleton

Ever heard of a connecting flight?

A lot of the time they specifically want to come to Ireland because they have friends/family here, they have heard it was safe, or simply buy a flight to Ireland from wheverever they are from.

Apart from that, there's lots of reasons, most notably that they are here legitimately but apply for asylum due to a change of circumstances at home (e.g. change of government, other political problems).

Generally, refugees are required to make their application in the first safe country that they enter, but this depends a lot on the particular person.

Croc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ever heard of a connecting flight?

A lot of the time they specifically want to come to Ireland because they have friends/family here, they have heard it was safe, or simply buy a flight to Ireland from wheverever they are from.

Apart from that, there's lots of reasons, most notably that they are here legitimately but apply for asylum due to a change of circumstances at home (e.g. change of government, other political problems).

Generally, refugees are required to make their application in the first safe country that they enter, but this depends a lot on the particular person.

Duh !

Back to my original point "Until recently there were no direct flights from Nigeria to here". Therefore they should have applied for asylum in the first country they arrived at in the EU.

johnnyskeleton

Croc wrote: »

Duh !

Back to my original point "Until recently there were no direct flights from Nigeria to here". Therefore they should have applied for asylum in the first country they arrived at in the EU.

Art 7 Dublin Convention: The Member State responsible for controlling the entry of the alien into the territory of the Member States will be responsible for examining the application for asylum unless the alien first entered a Member State where the visa obligation is waived, before presenting an application for asylum in another Member State where the visa obligation is also waived;

This is subject to a number of other exceptions, but in any event, it is the country which the person first enters. If I get a connecting flight from Dublin to Sydney via Singapore, and I go straight from my aerlingus (or whatever) flight to Singapore to my Quantas flight to Australia, without ever actually entering into Singaporese territory. I might physically set foot on Singaporeseian soil, but I have not entered it's territory.

Hence connecting flights.

Croc

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Art 7 Dublin Convention: The Member State responsible for controlling the entry of the alien into the territory of the Member States will be responsible for examining the application for asylum unless the alien first entered a Member State where the visa obligation is waived, before presenting an application for asylum in another Member State where the visa obligation is also waived;

This is subject to a number of other exceptions, but in any event, it is the country which the person first enters. If I get a connecting flight from Dublin to Sydney via Singapore, and I go straight from my aerlingus (or whatever) flight to Singapore to my Quantas flight to Australia, without ever actually entering into Singaporese territory. I might physically set foot on Singaporeseian soil, but I have not entered it's territory.

Hence connecting flights.

Firstly both of you are being very subjective in the portions of the Dublin Convention that you are quoting, it states as follows.

"If the applicant is in possession of one or more valid visas or visas that have expired, the Member State that issued it/them will be responsible for examining the asylum application (Article 5(2) to (4));"

"If it can be proved that the applicant for asylum irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air, having come from a non-member state, the Member State thus entered will be responsible, unless the applicant has been living in the Member State where the application for asylum was presented for at least six months before making the application (Article 6);"

As most of the applicants arrive here without any paperwork i.e. passports etc then you can take it they did not have a visa either so Article 5 does not apply.

As stated above most of them did not have a visa so they entered the first state in the EU illegally.
E.G Applicant gets on a plane from Nigeria to U.K. (where direct flights did exist) he\she has no visa to enter. The board a connecting flight to Ireland.

Therefore they enter U.K illegally hence the obligation falls on UK authorities to process the application.

mike4819

reports this morning claim many asylum seekers have been claiming benefits from the State despite living elsewhere.

The reports say a significant number of Nigerian nationals living and working in the UK have been travelling to the Republic via the North to illegitimately claim social welfare payments.

Chinese and Romanian nationals are also reportedly involved in substantial abuse of child benefit schemes, while one Chinese woman claimed thousands of euros from the State even though she was living in China.

Elsewhere, a Nigerian woman who claimed her life was in danger reportedly claimed €67,000 during a four-year period that she actually spent living in Nigeria.

A wealthy Albanian businessman also reportedly claimed asylum in Ireland solely to get medical treatment and returned home regularly to the country he claimed to be fleeing.

This morning's reports say the discovery of these scams has saved the State €25m, but investigators believe further fraudsters have yet to be detected.

The figure, however, pales in comparison to the €200m saved by the Department of Social and Family Affairs as a result of anti-fraud measures in the first half of last year alone.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWSNOJIDKFAU

johnnyskeleton

Croc wrote: »

Firstly both of you are being very subjective in the portions of the Dublin Convention that you are quoting, it states as follows.

"If the applicant is in possession of one or more valid visas or visas that have expired, the Member State that issued it/them will be responsible for examining the asylum application (Article 5(2) to (4));"

"If it can be proved that the applicant for asylum irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air, having come from a non-member state, the Member State thus entered will be responsible, unless the applicant has been living in the Member State where the application for asylum was presented for at least six months before making the application (Article 6);"

As most of the applicants arrive here without any paperwork i.e. passports etc then you can take it they did not have a visa either so Article 5 does not apply.

As stated above most of them did not have a visa so they entered the first state in the EU illegally.
E.G Applicant gets on a plane from Nigeria to U.K. (where direct flights did exist) he\she has no visa to enter. The board a connecting flight to Ireland.

Therefore they enter U.K illegally hence the obligation falls on UK authorities to process the application.

As I say, when someone lands in an airport they do not necessarily cross the border or enter into the territory of that state. So in your example if they never go through UK immigration, they never actually enter into the UK.

johnnyskeleton

mike4819 wrote: »

reports this morning claim many asylum seekers have been claiming benefits from the State despite living elsewhere.
...
The figure, however, pales in comparison to the €200m saved by the Department of Social and Family Affairs as a result of anti-fraud measures in the first half of last year alone.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWSNOJIDKFAU

Compared to the crimes committed by Irish citizens that's barely a drop in the ocean. So what's your point?

mike4819

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Compared to the crimes committed by Irish citizens that's barely a drop in the ocean. So what's your point?

How many duped,p.c. brainwashed,(to the point of perversity) self-hating Irish people there are!

Hobbes

Can we skip the obvious crap that some people are spouting. There is a difference between an Asylum seeker, Refugee and immigrants. No one has mentioned immigrant yet but certainly the other two seem to be loosely thrown around.

For example Mike48191 refers to Refugees, not asylum seekers. You should read up on the difference.

Also the comment referring to why can they claim asylum from Nigeria because it isn't wartorn, etc. That doesn't matter. There is at least one reported instance of a person from the USA claiming asylum in England a few years back and getting it.

Duh !

Back to my original point "Until recently there were no direct flights from Nigeria to here". Therefore they should have applied for asylum in the first country they arrived at in the EU.

What makes you think they all got thier connecting flight in the EU? Or passed through immigration in that EU country? Or if they didn't arrive on a boat? Even so PSI points out the system.

paulizei

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Why are there Nigerian refugees in Ireland at all?

• There is no civil war, major unrest in Nigeria at the present time. So why refugees?

Nigeria is a huge country run by a totally corrupt government with ethnic, religious, political and resource based conflicts going on all the time. Person on internet doesn't know what he's talking about shock.

bartholomewbinn

I have been reading this thread with a sense of foreboding and bemusement. A lot of the posters seem to by part of the nouveau pc brigade. For instance “Nigeria is a huge country run by a totally corrupt government with ethnic, religious, political and resource based conflicts going on all the time” what has that got to do with Ireland? Or “Also the comment referring to why can they claim asylum from Nigeria because it isn't wartorn, etc. That doesn't matter. There is at least one reported instance of a person from the USA claiming asylum in England a few years back and getting it.”
Does this mean that if I have a row with a drug dealing neighbour I can go to Australia or the united states and claim asylum there because my life is in danger? I don’t think so. Or, “if they didn't arrive on a boat? “please tell me what boats come directly to Ireland from Nigeria . It’s really time that we copped on and came down on top of so called asylum seekers like a ton of bricks. Let the word go out, Ireland is not a soft touch.
Again let me empathize, I am not talking about legal immigrants, just so called asylum seekers, and so called refugees.

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I am not talking about legal immigrants, just so called asylum seekers, and so called refugees.

You are in serious need of an introductory course in international migration law:
http://www.imldb.iom.int/section.do

bartholomewbinn

djpbarry wrote: »

You are in serious need of an introductory course in international migration law:
http://www.imldb.iom.int/section.do

Not really concerned what the law is, I am giving my opinion on what the law should be. It seems that the views of non pc types like me are not taken seriously.

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

It seems that the views of non pc types like me are not taken seriously.

Possibly because your view (non-pc is, ironically, a rather pc description in this case) would be in the extreme minority? The vast majority of people would be quite happy to help someone who is being persecuted for whatever reason, or who is in danger of torture or even death.

paulizei

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I have been reading this thread with a sense of foreboding and bemusement. A lot of the posters seem to by part of the nouveau pc brigade. For instance “Nigeria is a huge country run by a totally corrupt government with ethnic, religious, political and resource based conflicts going on all the time” what has that got to do with Ireland?

It was a response to the stupid question

There is no civil war, major unrest in Nigeria at the present time. So why refugees?"

Try doing a modicum of research before spouting rubbish.

inforfun

Interesting subject this.

I come from a (EU) country that had a government during the mid 90's till around 2002 that found it fit to take in 100.000 "asylumseekers" a year.
The system we had in those days was so open to corruption, the openings could be seen from dark mid Africa.
No one asked question how it could happen that at 1 point in 1 asylum seeker centre there was the guy claimed to be tortured in Afghanistan sharing the a room with the guy who suposedly tortured him.
Another example of how well we dealt with asylumseekers, Iranian woman enters the country claiming her life is in severe danger. After some time and a sexchange operation (costing €200.000 taxpayers money) he/she left to go back to Iran.



There is an entire industry in European countries relying on asylumseekers. Not because they need the labour of those people but it is to secure their own jobs. I am talking about lawyers and all kinds of social workers.

Ireland be careful with what you allow to enter your country because my own country now realises it has a problem they can not get rid of anymore.
People estimate that during the 90's about 85/90% of asylumseekers were not in danger and the only reason they made the trip was for economical reasons.

Now, before someone jumps on me and starts to blame me for the same. i did arrive one day and the next day i went to my job. Till this day i can not see any Irish person doing my job, apart from the odd one who might speak my native language.

And bartholomewbinn.... get used to be called a racist in discussions like these for speaking your (not pc) mind.
I did.

bartholomewbinn

paulizei wrote: »

It was a response to the stupid question
Try doing a modicum of research before spouting rubbish.

“Although the April 2003 elections were marred by some irregularities, Nigeria is currently experiencing its longest period of civilian rule since independence. General elections in April 2007 were considered significantly flawed by Nigerian and international observers but they marked the first civilian-to-civilian transfer of power in the country's history. President Umaru Musa YAR'ADUA took office on 29 May 2007.”

Not exactly a bed of roses, but no mention of civil war, major unrest or ethnic cleansing. You must be a very ignorant person to regard a view that doesn’t correspond to yours as rubbish.