Asylum Seekers in Ireland

bartholomewbinn

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

Your comment is a bit disingenuous. “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.” Of course they would, but the vast majority of people in this country also do not want us to be a haven for chancers and economic illegal migrants.

Zombrex

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???

They (the asylum seeker) aren't supposed to do anything.

As Psi has already pointed out the Dublin Convention is nothing to do with the obligations of the asylum seeker. It is to do with how to handle disputes when two or more EU countries are refusing to process an application.

If there becomes a dispute over which EU country is supposed to handle an asylum seeker that applies for asylum in both countries (ie where both countries are saying "This is your problem") the responsibility defaults back to the first country they applied, in certain circumstances.

Nigerians can come here and apply for asylum if they wish. There is no obligation that if they pass through a EU airport or sea port they have to apply for asylum there instead.

Zombrex

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?
• 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.

Perhaps you should ask them?

bartholomewbinn

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps you should ask them?

What an extraordinary witty comment, are you perhaps distantly related to Oscar Wilde?

paulizei

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

“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.

You need to try much harder tbh.

Hobbes

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

snip

Be aware that not everyone uses the plain white background so your post is for the most part unreadable or quotable. Not sure if that is intentional.

In answer to your question. Any one can claim asylum for whatever reason of persecution. Having it accepted is two different things. Your example would probably be rejected unless say the drug lords also owned the government.

I don't recall the exact details of the UK case but IIRC the reporter had claimed that he was being threatened with his life and his family after some story he did on the police. Federal police wouldn't help him so he could claim asylum.

As for the boat thing. Again, what makes you think the person got onto a boat in Nigeria? It is possible for the Nigerian to go to another country outside the EU via other transport and then to a boat.

bartholomewbinn

paulizei wrote: »

You need to try much harder tbh.

Yes, I am right, you are ignorant. No point in answering you again

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

What an extraordinary witty comment, are you perhaps distantly related to Oscar Wilde?

I was being serious. How do you expect to find out without talking to Nigerian asylum seekers?

Or would you just prefer to assume that what ever the reason it isn't one you approve of?

bartholomewbinn

Hobbes wrote: »

Be aware that not everyone uses the plain white background so your post is for the most part unreadable or quotable. Not sure if that is intentional.

In answer to your question. Any one can claim asylum for whatever reason of persecution. Having it accepted is two different things. Your example would probably be rejected unless say the drug lords also owned the government.

I don't recall the exact details of the UK case but IIRC the reporter had claimed that he was being threatened with his life and his family after some story he did on the police. Federal police wouldn't help him so he could claim asylum.

As for the boat thing. Again, what makes you think the person got onto a boat in Nigeria? It is possible for the Nigerian to go to another country outside the EU via other transport and then to a boat.

Sorry what do you mean, unreadable?

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

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.

The US State Department rates Nigeria's human rights status as "poor" (that isn't good by the way)

The major areas where foreign asylum becomes necessary is due to a failing of the police and the legal system. Without a functioning, non-bias, uncorrupt police force it can become necessary for people to seek asylum in foreign countries.

Unfortunately Nigeria is particularly bad in these areas. The police force and the judiciary are considered by most Western States to be some of the most corrupt in Africa.

US Library of Congress Report on Nigeria - June 2006
"According to a March 2006 report by the U.S. Department of State, abuses by the Nigerian police, including the use of lethal force against suspects, are commonplace. In addition, in July 2005 Human Rights Watch issued a highly critical report on police torture and deaths in custody in Nigeria. The report found that attempts to reform the police had been largely symbolic and failed to address torture adequately."

This alone would be grounds for people to seek asylum (who protects you if the police and the law won't?)

But there is also sectarian striff in certain areas of the country

US Library of Congress Report on Nigeria - June 2006
"The two principal threats to domestic security are violence in the Niger Delta and sectarian strife between Muslims and Christians."

Despite your (rather ignorant) claims, there are plenty of reasons why a person would seek asylum from Nigeria in a different country

bartholomewbinn

Wicknight wrote: »

The US State Department rates Nigeria's human rights status as "poor" (that isn't good by the way)

The major areas where foreign asylum becomes necessary is due to a failing of the police and the legal system. Without a functioning, non-bias, uncorrupt police force it can become necessary for people to seek asylum in foreign countries.

Unfortunately Nigeria is particularly bad in these areas. The police force and the judiciary are considered by most Western States to be some of the most corrupt in Africa.

US Library of Congress Report on Nigeria - June 2006
"According to a March 2006 report by the U.S. Department of State, abuses by the Nigerian police, including the use of lethal force against suspects, are commonplace. In addition, in July 2005 Human Rights Watch issued a highly critical report on police torture and deaths in custody in Nigeria. The report found that attempts to reform the police had been largely symbolic and failed to address torture adequately."

This alone would be grounds for people to seek asylum (who protects you if the police and the law won't?)

But there is also sectarian striff in certain areas of the country

US Library of Congress Report on Nigeria - June 2006
"The two principal threats to domestic security are violence in the Niger Delta and sectarian strife between Muslims and Christians."

Despite your (rather ignorant) claims, there are plenty of reasons why a person would seek asylum from Nigeria in a different country

I see you have cherry picked a few very unsavoury points about Nigeria. But at the end of the day Nigeria is no worse and an awful lot better than most sub Saharan African countries. They are trying very hard to get their act together. And I am sure if your post was read by an official of the Nigerian embassy they would very soon decide who is being ignorant. Perhaps the US library of congress should take a closer look at the USA. Good day to you.

djpbarry

inforfun wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure what your sources are for this information, but anyway, taking 2005 as an example:

A total of 4,323 new asylum applications were received in Ireland. 455 applicants were recognised as refugees by the first instance comittee, 511 were recognised on appeal. The point is that most applications for asylum are actually rejected.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

...the vast majority of people in this country also do not want us to be a haven for chancers and economic illegal migrants.

Neither do I - what's your point?

djpbarry

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Nigeria is no worse and an awful lot better than most sub Saharan African countries. They are trying very hard to get their act together. And I am sure if your post was read by an official of the Nigerian embassy they would very soon decide who is being ignorant. Perhaps the US library of congress should take a closer look at the USA.

Perhaps you should do a little more research:
http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Africa/Nigeria

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I see you have cherry picked a few very unsavoury points about Nigeria.

Yes I have, the ones that demonstrate why a person would flee the country seeking asylum some where else.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

But at the end of the day Nigeria is no worse and an awful lot better than most sub Saharan African countries.

That isn't true, not that it actually matters.

How "better or worse" Nigeria is compared to other African countries has no bearing on whether or not a person would have a legitimate reason to seek asylum from Nigeria.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

They are trying very hard to get their act together.

Apparently not that hard.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=nigeri

But again that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not someone could have a legitimate reason to seek asylum from that country. The very fact that they have to get their act together in the first place demonstrates the problem.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

And I am sure if your post was read by an official of the Nigerian embassy they would very soon decide who is being ignorant.

I would imagine that, being an official of the Nigerian government, they would toe the official government line, what ever that is.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Perhaps the US library of congress should take a closer look at the USA. Good day to you.

Perhaps you should stop making sweeping statements about Nigeria asylum seekers that are clearly contradicted by the facts.

inforfun

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm not sure what your sources are for this information, but anyway, taking 2005 as an example:

A total of 4,323 new asylum applications were received in Ireland. 455 applicants were recognised as refugees by the first instance comittee, 511 were recognised on appeal. The point is that most applications for asylum are actually rejected.

I wasnt talking about Ireland but my home country with those figures i mentioned. And this was mid 90's till 2002.
During those day most applications were also rejected in my country but then came the army of well do'ers and started appeal after appeal.
This year they decided, that about 50.000 people whose application was rejected and all the appeals after were rejected, still can stay because it would be unhuman to send them back where they came from.

This decision will cost the taxpayer in my country 500 million euro.

bartholomewbinn

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes I have, the ones that demonstrate why a person would flee the country seeking asylum some where else.


That isn't true, not that it actually matters.

How "better or worse" Nigeria is compared to other African countries has no bearing on whether or not a person would have a legitimate reason to seek asylum from Nigeria.


Apparently not that hard.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=africa&c=nigeri

But again that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not someone could have a legitimate reason to seek asylum from that country. The very fact that they have to get their act together in the first place demonstrates the problem.


I would imagine that, being an official of the Nigerian government, they would toe the official government line, what ever that is.



Perhaps you should stop making sweeping statements about Nigeria asylum seekers that are clearly contradicted by the facts.

Excuse me, I am not making sweeping statements about Nigeria, and if Nigeria is as awful a place as you make it out to be, Nigerians should be staying home and trying to sort out the mess, not running away from it. I am new to posting on these boards, but have been reading them for a long time. You and people like you get very upset when someone has a different viewpoint than you. And of course try to get them banned. That way you can have no one here except others who share your views.

Morlar

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Your comment is a bit disingenuous...

You should get used to recieving disingenous responses if you say anything non pc. Having your point of view mis-characterised and repeated back to you, also being made to deny saying things that you never said. This is before we even get to the new depths of pedantic-ness and splitting hairs over and over and over into infinity or until boredom sets in.

All signs of the overly vocal minority pc crowd not having a leg to stand on and trying to shout down anyone who expresses a non pc opinion that in reality the majority of the country would be in agreement with (going by the last and only referendum we had that related to the sphere of immigration and asylum).

I think the pc crowd think they are some kind of elite protecting the masses from their baser immigrant bashing instincts - whereas in reality its misguided idealism not based on the realities of life.

bartholomewbinn

Morlar wrote: »

You should get used to recieving disingenous responses if you say anything non pc. Having your point of view mis-characterised and repeated back to you, also being made to deny saying things that you never said. This is before we even get to the new depths of pedantic-ness and splitting hairs over and over and over into infinity or until boredom sets in.

All signs of the overly vocal minority pc crowd not having a leg to stand on and trying to shout down anyone who expresses a non pc opinion that in reality the majority of the country would be in agreement with (going by the last and only referendum we had that related to the sphere of immigration and asylum).

I think the pc crowd think they are some kind of elite protecting the masses from their baser immigrant bashing instincts - whereas in reality its misguided idealism not based on the realities of life.

Good god, some one un pc, normal and sensible. Wonders never cease.

Morlar

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Good god, some one un pc, normal and sensible. Wonders never cease.

My honest opinion is that there are a lot of non pc people on here (based on meeting some irl) its just that they are too afraid to step out of line as they would rather not have to deal with the kind of crap mentioned above.

djpbarry

inforfun wrote: »

I wasnt talking about Ireland but my home country with those figures i mentioned.

Yes, I know. I was just illustrating the fact that most asylum applications in Ireland are rejected.

Any chance you could tell us where you are from? I'd be interested in reading more about your country's history in this area.

Zombrex

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Excuse me, I am not making sweeping statements about Nigeria,

You are saying (or at the very least strongly implying, given that you ignored answers to your question, demonstrating that it was in fact a rhetorical question), that there is no reason for a Nigeria to claim asylum in Ireland or anywhere else.

That is a sweeping (and rather ignorant) statement given the situation in Nigeria at the moment.

If you want to try and back it up with evidence go ahead.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

and if Nigeria is as awful a place as you make it out to be, Nigerians should be staying home and trying to sort out the mess, not running away from it.

That is rather warped logic. They obviously run away from the country because they fear for their safety or the safety of their family.

To suggest that they should stay and suffer the consequences (oppression, torture, death) so the country can "sort out the mess" is asking rather a lot don't you think?

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

I am new to posting on these boards, but have been reading them for a long time. You and people like you get very upset when someone has a different viewpoint than you.

Its seems that you are the only one "very upset", given the tone of your posts and the way you appear to be deeply offended that people didn't just take your opinion at face value.

The fact of the matter is that your statements about Nigeria are incorrect, as demonstrated by a number of posters, including myself.

You seem quite annoyed that this has been pointed out, which TBH suggests to me that you require the idea of Nigeria being a stable, safe enough country, for pushing the agenda that Nigeria asylum seekers are not worthy of asylum status in Ireland.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

And of course try to get them banned.

People are only banned on the politics forum if they continue to make factual statements that they refuse to back up with evidence or statistics.

This is often done because the person is pushing an agenda that is not actually supported by any facts, but they want to push it anyway, such as the idea that there is no legitimate reason for a Nigerian to claim asylum in Ireland.

What often happens is a poster, who is asked to back up their statements, realises that they can't and then launches into a rant about Boards.ie itself, hoping that this will distract from the actual issue, that being them not being able to back up what they are saying. You appear to be heading down that path, and I would politely suggest that if you end up getting banned because of that you have no one but yourself to blame. If you want to demonstrate me wrong simply put forward evidence that I am wrong. Simply saying I am and then complaining that no one listens is rather pointless.

If you don't want to get banned from this forum you simply need to calmly back up your statements with hard facts and figures. Do this and you will be grand.

bartholomewbinn

Yes, what I thought. Molar is exactly right. And from what I have seen one is not allowed to have an opinion here unless it conforms to what the pc brigade believes.

Zombrex

Wicknight wrote:

What often happens is a poster, who is asked to back up their statements, realises that they can't and then launches into a rant about Boards.ie itself, hoping that this will distract from the actual issue, that being them not being able to back up what they are saying.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Yes, what I thought. Molar is exactly right. And from what I have seen one is not allowed to have an opinion here unless it conforms to what the pc brigade believes.

Disappointingly predictable Bartholomew

Amazingly, considering how un-PC you are, you have yet to be banned.

So if you are genuinely interested in this topic why are you not putting forward your own evidence to back up what you are saying.

silverharp

This whole issue shows that well meaning treaties can backfire seriously when implemented on the ground. They create an incentive for fraud or exaggerated claims, are an obscene waste of taxpayers money and tie up scarce resources in the state. Given that perception is reality the system also creates resentment in the local population as locals are pitted against asylum seekers when it comes to housing or other services.

moe_sizlak

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Excuse me, I am not making sweeping statements about Nigeria, and if Nigeria is as awful a place as you make it out to be, Nigerians should be staying home and trying to sort out the mess, not running away from it. I am new to posting on these boards, but have been reading them for a long time. You and people like you get very upset when someone has a different viewpoint than you. And of course try to get them banned. That way you can have no one here except others who share your views.

while the whole area of nigerians is not at the present time , one that concerns me personally , i fully agree with your point about those who disagree with the regulars in here , more often then not end up getting warnings or even bans

defending minorities without question is key to the champagne socilists and trendy pc libs creed
elevates them above the riff raff
i once tried to criticise travellers

djpbarry

silverharp wrote: »

They create an incentive for fraud or exaggerated claims, are an obscene waste of taxpayers money and tie up scarce resources in the state.

It does seem that there is a lot that could be done to streamline the asylum process in Ireland. Given the relatively small number of applications that are received, the inordinate length of time taken to process these applications is totally unacceptable and benefits neither the applicant nor the state.

silverharp wrote: »

Given that perception is reality the system also creates resentment in the local population as locals are pitted against asylum seekers when it comes to housing or other services.

Considering the small number of applications that are received in this country, how much competition is there really between locals and asylum-seekers for any service?

Zombrex

moe_sizlak wrote: »

while the whole area of nigerians is not at the present time , one that concerns me personally , i fully agree with your point about those who disagree with the regulars in here , more often then not end up getting warnings or even bans

No one has ever been banned on the politics forum for disagreeing with someone.

Demonstrate me wrong ...

GuanYin

Barty banned 1 week.

Anyone else wishing to be insulting and uncivil can stop posting now and save me banning them.

inforfun

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes, I know. I was just illustrating the fact that most asylum applications in Ireland are rejected.

Any chance you could tell us where you are from? I'd be interested in reading more about your country's history in this area.

That would be Holland. I almost gave it away in the other posts
Good luck with finding information that is not in Dutch about this subject.....
All i claim in this and other posts i can back up with articles from newspapers and so on but they would be in Dutch.

Not trying to make this a Dutch topic but i just would like to point out what happens if you just allow just anyone into your country and provide them a free ride.

What does happen with the rejected cases here. After all most were rejected in Holland as well.
I really believe there is an, international, industry as it comes to asylum seekers. And it is not just the people traffickers.

During those days of flooding the country there was at 1 point this rumor that permanent residence was given away on a certain day. This turned out to be untrue but on that said day around 2.500 people turned up to pick one up. That doesnt sound too bad as it wasnt for the fact that they came from all over Europe and i am not talking about European citizens.

As soon as somewhat more stricter rules were implemented in Holland, the figures of new cases dropped dramatically (going down to not even 10.000 a year)

Morlar

inforfun wrote: »

That would be Holland.

Bloody dutch - coming over here taking all our job. ... (joking - sorry couldnt resist!)

Not to go off topic - but I read somewhere that indigenous dutch in holland are set to become a minority in 2018 - would you know if this is true /way off the mark - close to the mark ?