Asylum Seekers in Ireland

Zombrex

inforfun wrote: »

But that is now the 2nd time you take something completely out of context.

Which part?

Morlar

Originally Posted by Morlar
Yes but the part you dont get is the difference between me asking a question and you being insulting.

Wicknight wrote: »

No there isn't because the way we both asked the question is the same.

The question I asked is only insulting because of the implication of the question, the implication that what I'm asking you might be true.

The same holds for your question. You are implying that what you are asking is true without having to back that up with anything, because its "only a question"

I dont know how can I spell this out any more plainly.

A) I asked a question based on something I heard which originated from an author & journalist at a conference.

You 'asked a question' based on something you imagined or invented.

You can not credibly fail to recognise that these 2 statements a & b are true.

You can not possibly fail to recognise that there is a difference between a & b.

Wicknight wrote: »

There certainly is.

Finally a straight answer. Everything else you post about my motives or sincerity are your suspicions plain and simple. I think 'your suspicions' add up to a sum total of 0. We can all have suspicions and throw allegations around the place dont'cha know.

Zombrex

Morlar wrote: »

We can all have suspicions and throw allegations around the place dont'cha know.

Oh we certain can.

For example we can throw out the suggestion that the native population of Holland will be in a minority by 2018 for example.

Morlar

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh we certain can.

For example we can throw out the suggestion that the native population of Holland will be in a minority by 2018 for example.

Loose and easy with the facts there as ever.

There is a difference between a question, a suspicion and a suggestion/allegation.

Even if you meant 'we can ask a question about the native population in Holland being a minority in 2018'

Even if that was what you meant (and the question is based on the comments of a renowned journalist author at a conference) can we really ask that question ?

It looks like we can but its conditional on recieving a barrage of insults along the lines of 'your mother is a donkey sucking whore and you rape polish women'.

So exactly how free we are to ask a question is up for debate. imo. I suppose it depends on the question and who approves and who doesnt - what the tactics of their response is likely to be and so on.

GuanYin

OK.

I'm gonna direct you all to the thread title.

Unless we're specifically talking about Asylum seekers, I don't know why its in this thread.

inforfun

Ok, since i am pretty crap at creating a reply where the answers are nicely under the quotes you ll have to do with this.

First of all i am talking only about the Dutch situation, i am from there, still read the news from there. And every now and then i spend some time there.
Afaik muslims in the UK dont have too many problems speaking English. We are talking about over 1 billion muslims worldwide, they dont live or come from 1 and the same country. So i can imagine that the muslims in the UK are from different countries than the ones living in Holland (majority is from Turkey and Morocco). To be fair, when they arrived in the early years, the 70's, no one really demanded from them to learn Dutch. But dont you agree that at a certain point you should think by yourself that it could be quite handy to speak the language of the country you live in, certainly when it looks like you will not leave for home in the near future.
Once again, i have the impression you are talking about the UK and i think it is a complete different situation in Holland as it comes to speaking the language.
In france this problem is not really existing with Moroccans either, they dont seem to have much problems speaking french.

Since i am talking about the Dutch situation (since way back in this topic someone asked me about Holland...) i fear most of not all my sources will be in Dutch.
To start with this one:
About what guest labor did cost Holland. Mind you, this is a newspaper article from 1999
Presuming none of you understands Dutch i ll translate the part halfway where the interviewer says "U schrijft" meaning: you are saying guest labor did cost 70 billion guilders (is about 30 billion euro), how so?
Answer in the first 10 years companies made a profit of 4 billion because they were working. However since 1983 they disapeared as employees because of successive rescessions and little or no education. The ones that do still work have low salary jobs of which there is no gain being made and in fact cost the state more than those jobs bring in. The Netherlands is providing a living to the entire Turkish and Maroccon since 1983 without getting anything back worth mentioning.

Above was researched and said by P Lakeman, an independent (as far as one can be) economist in Holland.

Mind you, 30 billion was in 1999 so it isnt that recent as i thought. A little bit further in the article he mentions that the turkish and maroccon community in Holland do cost the Dutch state 7,2 billion guilders ( 3,8 in euro) a year. So since 1999 there is at least 8x 3,8= another 30,4 billion on top of the 30 in 1999.
So actually my claim of 50 was too low.
These costs include social welfare, subsidies on rent, child support and health care.
Maybe if you try to translate via babelfish it gives a text that still makes sense. i dont know.

......
Next: Your dresscode.
I read that you own 2 and sometimes dress that way. Would you wear them if you go for a job application?
I was talking about people who go dressed like that every day, in every situation.
Does it offend me? Offend is not the word. Whatever you do or wear in your own time in your own home, i really dont care. As long as you dont play your music till 3 in the morning with the volume on 20 ;-)
I can not really put into words what i have against it but maybe if i give an example it does help
When i was working in shipping in the past in Holland i had to go quite often to immigration. There was this woman working, from Turkish decent. Not exactly dressed to the latest fashion but i am not a fashion model either so who cares. 1 time i left the building at the same as her, she went in her car and put on a headscarf, covering her hair. Ok, no complaints there. She is her own time so why would i care. if she had been sitting at the reception in that building wearing a niqaab i definetaly would not have appreciated that.
At the same time, i dont like it when i go into a shop and there is a western european girl chewing gum sitting in her track suit behind the check out.

---

About the holidays.
I was talking about trading in holidays, not adding.
Quite a different thing i think.
A few years back i worked in a company that was open 7 days a week, holidays included. End of the ramadan was pretty close to christmas and it all ended up that the dutch people were off at christmas and the muslims were working. And the muslims in return could have their days of at the end of the ramadan. Worked out good in that situation.

----
About whether or not muslims contribute. Again, i am talking about the dutch situation. Situation in the Uk i dont know about, i dont live there and i am not from the UK.
The figures up here in this post from P Lakeman show pretty clear that they dont contribute in Holland. You may call it generalization if you like. I am aware that not every single one is costing money.
---

I finish here, i owe you the crime stats
---

I dont think every muslim is a liar a thief or a murderer, i dont know what gave you that idea.
And no, i am not anti-islam entirely. I am against the fundamentalists, i am against people who just refuse to think for themselves but let their lives to be dictated by what is supposedly written in a holy book. I say supposedly as i am aware that the Koran is very much open to interpretation. i get uncomfortable when people think they are better than me because they believe in something i dont. i get even more uncomfortable when they try to force their thoughts and way of living on me.
As a matter of fact i am not too fond about religion.

And oh JpBarry, in your last line you mention i feared the fact that dutch natives become a majority. Either i made a mistake in my post earlier or you did....
I do fear the moment the native dutch are not the majority anymore indeed. If it will be 2050 i dont think i will care too much as my days would be numbered by then anyway (age).

inforfun

psi wrote: »

OK.

I'm gonna direct you all to the thread title.

Unless we're specifically talking about Asylum seekers, I don't know why its in this thread.

Ooops... i was busy with my last post when that was posted.....
But agreed.... this went quite a bit of topic.

johnnyskeleton

inforfun wrote: »

And no, i am not anti-islam entirely. I am against the fundamentalists, i am against people who just refuse to think for themselves but let their lives to be dictated by what is supposedly written in a holy book. I say supposedly as i am aware that the Koran is very much open to interpretation. i get uncomfortable when people think they are better than me because they believe in something i dont. i get even more uncomfortable when they try to force their thoughts and way of living on me.
As a matter of fact i am not too fond about religion.

Just out of curiosity (and to bring it back on topic), how do you feel about asylum seekers who are fleeing from a country governed by Sharia law, because they are gay or a woman or whatever?

And how about fundamentalists of other religions (e.g. those "god hates fags" people etc)?

inforfun

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just out of curiosity (and to bring it back on topic), how do you feel about asylum seekers who are fleeing from a country governed by Sharia law, because they are gay or a woman or whatever?

And how about fundamentalists of other religions (e.g. those "god hates fags" people etc)?

I have no problem with the real refugee/asylum seeker, the ones who have to fear for their lives in their own country for political or lifestyle reasons.
At the same time i think it should be a temporary solution for them. If the situation in their country changes in a way it is safe for them to return, i think they should return. Of course this has to be within reason. It doesnt make sense to send someone back if only after 50 years his or her own country is safe enough again.

Any kind of religious fundamentalism is a bad thing in my opinion.

djpbarry

inforfun wrote: »

But dont you agree that at a certain point you should think by yourself that it could be quite handy to speak the language of the country you live in, certainly when it looks like you will not leave for home in the near future.

You are implying that none (or only the minority) of the Turkish or Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands have a word of Dutch - I find this hard to believe.

While I don't doubt that there are immigrants who have not learned Dutch (I would imagine that a lot of British and Irish people who emigrate to Holland try to get by with English), it is difficult to quantify the extent of the problem.

Besides, did the Dutch government not recently introduce obligatory Dutch language lessons for non-Dutch speaking immigrants?

inforfun wrote: »

In france this problem is not really existing with Moroccans either, they dont seem to have much problems speaking french.

Morocco was a protectorate of France from 1912 - 1956. French is still the official language.

inforfun wrote: »

The Netherlands is providing a living to the entire Turkish and Maroccon since 1983 without getting anything back worth mentioning.

Unemployment in the Netherlands is currently the lowest in the EU. Turks and Moroccans make up 4.1% of the population. Are you saying that virtually all Turks and Moroccans of an employable age are unemployed? This would mean that the unemployed population in the Netherlands would almost exclusively consist of Turks and Moroccans, which would contradict this report.

inforfun wrote: »

I read that you own 2 and sometimes dress that way. Would you wear them if you go for a job application?

I would not, no, but do you have evidence that most Muslim men are wearing a shalwar kamis (or the Thawb, the Arab equivalent) when applying for jobs? I would say this is doubtful, since these dress-codes are not very common in Turkey in particular.

inforfun wrote: »

1 time i left the building at the same as her, she went in her car and put on a headscarf, covering her hair. Ok, no complaints there. She is her own time so why would i care. if she had been sitting at the reception in that building wearing a niqaab i definetaly would not have appreciated that.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. There is a relatively large Muslim contingent where I work, and some of the women wear the hijab, but it really doesn't bother me.

inforfun wrote: »

A few years back i worked in a company that was open 7 days a week, holidays included. End of the ramadan was pretty close to christmas and it all ended up that the dutch people were off at christmas and the muslims were working. And the muslims in return could have their days of at the end of the ramadan. Worked out good in that situation.

Ok, so what's the problem?

inforfun wrote: »

I do fear the moment the native dutch are not the majority anymore indeed.

They are, you needn't worry.

inforfun wrote: »

If it will be 2050 i dont think i will care too much as my days would be numbered by then anyway (age).

But, never-the-less, the thought of the Dutch being a minority does bother you, no? I'm curious to know why this is?

inforfun wrote: »

At the same time i think it should be a temporary solution for them. If the situation in their country changes in a way it is safe for them to return, i think they should return.

Many do return. Remember, genuine asylum seekers are FORCED to leave their home. Many are only too happy to return.

As I already mentioned, the Dutch government has recently been issuing more temporary asylum permits than permanent ones.

inforfun wrote: »

Any kind of religious fundamentalism is a bad thing in my opinion.

I would certainly agree with that .

GuanYin

ON TOPIC!

I'm closing this if people don't learn to differentiate between asylum seekers and immigrants.

inforfun

Djpbarry,

I would have liked to continue this but i fear that the mod will wipe out all our typing from now on


It was interesting discussing with you.And hey... we did agree on 1 point at least.

Cheers

cabinteelytom

The original poster asked.'How ,then, are there so many Nigerians seeking asylum here?'
The next respondent asked, 'How many are there?'
The answer to the second question can be found at www.unhcr.org.
I'll sum up: in 2005 and 2006 ; 7,959 nigerians lodged asylum applications in 36 industrialised countries, 7,145 of those were to 'Europe'. That is austrialia, US and Canada and Japan are less favoured by nigerian asylum seekers.
Of the 27 countries of the EU, Ireland was the most popular destination for nigerian asylum seekers. The UK, population 59 million, was the next most popular.
In those two years 2, 313 nigerians applied for asylum in Ireland; 32% of the total which applied to any European country.
In 2005 nigerians swamped any other asylum seeking group in Ireland (1,276 nigerians, and the next most common applicants were Romanians 385); the only country where they do so.

bartholomewbinn

http://archives.tcm.ie/laoisnationalist/2007/08/30/story26618.asp

This concerns THE Mayor of Portlaoise Cllr Rotimi Adebari, he came here looking for asylum because of religious persecution. According to this article he’s a hero in his home place, not one word about religious persecution.

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

http://archives.tcm.ie/laoisnationalist/2007/08/30/story26618.asp

This concerns THE Mayor of Portlaoise Cllr Rotimi Adebari, he came here looking for asylum because of religious persecution. According to this article he’s a hero in his home place, not one word about religious persecution.

He converted to Christianity in 1991 having been raised by a staunchly Islamic family/region. Do you deny the possibility that a person doing such could suffer religion persecution (regardless of the level).

In any case, it is rather a pointless debate seeing as his residency here was due to the Irish Born Child scheme (now abolished) and not through asylum processes.


It should also be noted, the who "First Port of Call" thing was designed to prevent people "shopping around" not to limit asylum seekers to the first country, per se.

Think about it, do you really believe that the EU would ratify a rule that limits asylum seekers from key areas toa select few countries? Have sense.

bartholomewbinn

psi wrote: »

He converted to Christianity in 1991 having been raised by a staunchly Islamic family/region. Do you deny the possibility that a person doing such could suffer religion persecution (regardless of the level).

In any case, it is rather a pointless debate seeing as his residency here was due to the Irish Born Child scheme (now abolished) and not through asylum processes.


It should also be noted, the who "First Port of Call" thing was designed to prevent people "shopping around" not to limit asylum seekers to the first country, per se.

Think about it, do you really believe that the EU would ratify a rule that limits asylum seekers from key areas toa select few countries? Have sense.

The only point I am making is that it seems very strange to me that a chap that had to leave his country due to religious persecution should go back for a visit and be received with a heroes welcome. Judging by the article the place that he comes from seems fairly reasonable, there was no mention of religion, Christianity or Islam.

GuanYin

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

The only point I am making is that it seems very strange to me that a chap that had to leave his country due to religious persecution should go back for a visit and be received with a heroes welcome. Judging by the article the place that he comes from seems fairly reasonable, there was no mention of religion, Christianity or Islam.

Religious persecution happens in all societies and we on the outside may not appreciate the effect it has as much as the individual suffering it. Think Belfast Catholic-Protestant marriages in the 1980's (they're still referred to as "mixed marriages").

It is a mute point anyway, his application for asylum was denied, so obviously the authorities didn't see his plight the same way he did. Doesn't mean he didn't feel persecuted.

walrusgumble

the issue with asylum is that an asylum seeker, regardless of their nationality, has a right under international law, in this case under the geneva convention and new york protocol, to come to an international frontier and claim asylum. that country has an obligation to hear that claim in a fair manner in accordance with the law.

the dublin convention only really kicks in where it is found via immigration officer's searches that one had already applied for asylum in another eu country or was refused. then the host state does not have an obligation to hear the case. instead they contact the eu state in question with the view of takin gback the applicant and continue their application there.

now, in order to avail of persecution, one must show that they have been persecuted in their country of origin and due to there fears are unwilling to return or to avail of the protection of their state. this persecution must be claimed on the convention grounds of race, religion, persecution, political opinion and or membership of a social membership group. the convnetion is also forward looking. it looks at the reasonable likihood of one been persecuted if returned to their home state.

it is receongised by international authorities that there is a subjective fear and objective fear. both must met together inorder to be seen as credible and plausible stories.

subjective fear in say a political opinion claim: the applicant will be expected to have strong knowledge of the parties they represent, oppoisition, population ratio etc. after all they are claiming to be political. they need to show proof eg docuements such as membership cards etc. of course it is not always possible to do so when one is fleeing and the rules are they were it can sometimes give the benefit of the doubt where the rest of the story is plausible.

next is the objective fear.the authorities look at country of origin information such as :

un, amnesty international, uk home office report and operational guideness notes, canadian reports, us dept of state reports and so forth. these are detailed reports on what is going on in the country in question, when an applicant wrongly answers a question in relation to say the name of a chairman of a party he claims to be in , the decision makers must bring that fact to them for their response.


their is also the handbook for determing the critereia of refugee status from the unchr which assists the lawyers and decision makers
in many cases, the applicant may have a fear of being killed. but they must show that they have done the following to show that they have a well founded fear of persecution:

1. report incidents to the police if persecutor is not the state. it would not be accepted that the person says he or she did not report to the police on ground of them being corrupt. an attempt is expected to be made and the unchr handbook stands by this.

2. if the persecution is not from the state authorities, one must have attempted to relocate in their country. coi will look at whether or not the type of persecution alledged is or is not nation wide. if it is found that one had tried to relocate in another part of the city etc or province and found that they where not attacked it would be deemed that they could remain there safely. many will claim that they will be found by their persecutors. if that is claimed one would have to look at the facts and question the applicant as to whether or not attempts to find one were made and or were successful. if one had relocated and remained for a bout two months, it would be reasonable to find that internal relocation was possible and was exercised. returning to their own country after intially fleeing will seriously undermine their applications.

3. they are expected to apply for asylum in the nearest frontier that they arrive at, provided of course they are safe themselves. coi will be assessed with as to whether or not that frontierr country is complient with the geneva convention on refugees.




with regard to nigeria, one person was correct in highlighting the us dept of state human rights report. now i often agree with that persons attitudes etc but it is true, in relation to nigeria, he is cherry picking the facts. he will be able to see that the report (2007) will show that despite the corruption in parts of the force one has the oppurtunity to complain to the higher authorities in the force. ok it could be argued that through past experience the applicant has no faith or trust in the police or army but the handbook and experts in asylum law state that an attempt must be made to report.

the next thing, nigeria is a huge country with over 60 million people. 13 or so states, the religon is reasonably split between muslim and christian. the north is very muslim whilst places like youraba, benin state and edo are prodiminately christain. unless the state were responsible for hitler like extermination of a certain religion or ethnic group, the coi report (objective fear) that one can easily relocate to another part of the country, which freedom of movement is allowed, and settle in a safe area that is prodominately of their religion or ethnic group.

many adult women of nigeria and other parts claim they were threatened with female mutilation, however, 98.9% of the country of origin show that this practice has greatly been banned in all states (even muslim areas), it outdated, the police do actually that the practice seriously and have arrested practicioners, further the practice is 98% of the time carried out when the girl is under 16. with this info its very difficult to find a claim from a eg 36 year old lady to be credible.

lets look at the agbonlahour case, the reports find that discrimination on that the fact that a child suffers mental difficulties etc is not tolerated by the majority in areas such as lagos. it also found that there were agencies in nigeria, albeit independent non governmental, to assist. the european courts have found that a claim that a country in question can not provide adequately serious etc to be grounds for refugee status, particularily if the applicant has not been discriminated against. it is at the discretion of a country to allow a person stay on medical issues on humanitarian grounds (an application via sec 3.6 of the immigration act 1999, that will be made if one is refused refugee status in this country)

these are some reasons why applicants are refused. they must first show that their story is credible (their stories in their questionaire must correspond with the interview) inconsistencies occur.unfortunately for the asylum applicant country of origin does not support many of their contentions.

the applicants have the oppurtunity to appeal their case (with legal aid - rightly so) and be legally represented. its up to them then to prove the authorities failed to consider such facts, coi etc. judicial review is also possible.

the nicholas case in the high court show issues to be concerned with regard to the decision makers. (in this case the tribunal member was on record of 100% refusal) the system is not 100% perfect but thats another story

oscarBravo

While we're on the subject, I'd like to knock the whole "there are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland" topic on the head here and now.

There are no direct flights from Chile to Ireland either, but I flew from Santiago to Dublin this week, via Paris. Where did I clear immigration & customs? Dublin.

cabinteelytom

So, those posters who think Ireland has an excessive number of nigerian asylum seekers are completely correct- applications are about thirty times the average for the EU by country's population.
This is not happening by chance. Ireland is perceived as 'soft touch' compared with other countries.
But don't be small-minded here. Thnk globally. What is happening internationally? Well last week, 14th Jan, the UK's 'Immigration Minister' ( http://bia.homeoffice.gov.uk) announced that country's plans for 2008. The minister noted that ' 2/3 of UK adults feel that laws on immigration should be tougher' and ' migration globally has doubled' and 'what the public are saying is simple.They want big changes to Britain's immigration system.'
The policies to be implemented by the UK in 2008 include:
higher visa charges
'check fingerprints before we issue a visa' (implemented on 14-1-08) and
checks to count foreign nationals in and out of the country and
a points system [for imigrant workers] 'to help British business' and
automatic deportation of foreign national prisoners and
remove the majority of failed asylum seekers within 6 months and [suddenly the teeth in the legislation appear], issue compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals, from NOVEMBER 2008.

Well! If you were a foreign national, with a dodgy asylum claim, will you be making your way to Britain or to Ireland?

bartholomewbinn

cabinteelytom wrote: »

So, those posters who think Ireland has an excessive number of nigerian asylum seekers are completely correct- applications are about thirty times the average for the EU by country's population.
This is not happening by chance. Ireland is perceived as 'soft touch' compared with other countries.
But don't be small-minded here. Thnk globally. What is happening internationally? Well last week, 14th Jan, the UK's 'Immigration Minister' ( http://bia.homeoffice.gov.uk) announced that country's plans for 2008. The minister noted that ' 2/3 of UK adults feel that laws on immigration should be tougher' and ' migration globally has doubled' and 'what the public are saying is simple.They want big changes to Britain's immigration system.'
The policies to be implemented by the UK in 2008 include:
higher visa charges
'check fingerprints before we issue a visa' (implemented on 14-1-08) and
checks to count foreign nationals in and out of the country and
a points system [for imigrant workers] 'to help British business' and
automatic deportation of foreign national prisoners and
remove the majority of failed asylum seekers within 6 months and [suddenly the teeth in the legislation appear], issue compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals, from NOVEMBER 2008.

Well! If you were a foreign national, with a dodgy asylum claim, will you be making your way to Britain or to Ireland?

This can only be positive for Ireland. The less bogus asylum seekers there are in the UK means the less we have to deal with as they can come here from the UK because of the common travel area between our two jurisdictions. We have a lot more pressing things to be doing with our recourses than sorting out and sifting through bogus asylum seekers. And if our government have an ounce of cop on they will introduce similar laws here.

djpbarry

cabinteelytom wrote: »

So, those posters who think Ireland has an excessive number of nigerian asylum seekers are completely correct- applications are about thirty times the average for the EU by country's population.

What's your point?

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Ireland is perceived as 'soft touch' compared with other countries.

In 2006, there were 199,900 new asylum applications received in the EU. If Ireland is perceived as a "soft touch", then why were such a small number (less than 2.2%) of those applications made in Ireland?

bob2000

In response to DJPBarry who wonders why the dutch are apprehensive about becoming a minority in their own country.

You sir are either a moron or pursuing some agenda. Have a quick think about how DEMOCRACY works.

cabinteelytom

One of the principles of asylum is that no part of one's own country is safe eg the [appallingly neglected] people of Western Sahara, are prevented by Morrocan army and border guards from returning to their dessicated stony land (but to them it's home).
The case of Nigeria? Well, It's different. Nigeria has a land mass larger than France and Italy combined. It contains a great variety of religious and ethnic groups. The Federal Republic of Nigeria is governed by 36 states, each with a degree of autonomy and differing legal systems, and a citizen is free to move to any of them. There is a lot of places in nigeria where a persecuted person can go.
The UN supports just one refugee camp for nigerians (it's in Cameroun). Since August 2004 it has judged Taraba state to be safe to return to.
The point; the asylum decisions of the Irish authorities are not as incomprehensible as some posters make out.

oscarBravo

bob2000, read the charter before you even think about posting here again.

bartholomewbinn

"In 2006, there were 199,900 new asylum applications received in the EU. If Ireland is perceived as a "soft touch", then why were such a small number (less than 2.2%) of those applications made in Ireland?"

Ireland accounts for about 1% of the EU population, yet we accounted for about 2.2% of asylum applications to the EU in 2006. That’s a lot of applications.

djpbarry

cabinteelytom wrote: »

the asylum decisions of the Irish authorities are not as incomprehensible as some posters make out.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

Ireland accounts for about 1% of the EU population, yet we accounted for about 2.2% of asylum applications to the EU in 2006. That’s a lot of applications.

Not really. In 2006 Ireland received 4,314 applications - that's just one for every thousand people in the country. Hardly what I would call "a lot of applications".

milmo

I have posted on similar threads before to make the same point. I have lived & worked in West Africa for a year. I have been to refugee camps, rural villages, and urban slums. People there did not know where Ireland was and even those that did, did not have the resources to get here. Only the relatively educated and well off can get here.
Based on my personal experience I believe people are exploiting our disaster of an immigration system. I am not a racist for believing or articulating this.

Debate in Ireland (and on a micro level on these boards) on immigration is polarised, and the extremes are just as ignorant as each other.

The “they’re over here taking our fat women, and unlicensed taxi jobs” lot have been marginalized, not however because of the merits or not of their arguments but because they are unfashionable, which in itself is wrong.

The “I won’t have children of my own because there are too many sad black babies in Africa in need of adoption that have to crawl fifty miles a day to work 25 hours a day in a munitions factory to keep Kim Il Jung in fur coats and whale meat/I’ve seen Mississippi Burning and I’m SOO not like that!” PC brigade. They miss a fundamental point. If you are actually going to treat people equally, rather than patronising them, then you must be open to the fact that human nature is flawed and that people are capable of exploiting our system, particularly when the long term benefits of Irish and EU citizenship are so lucrative for someone coming from Western Africa.

In 2006, there were 199,900 new asylum applications received in the EU. If Ireland is perceived as a "soft touch", then why were such a small number (less than 2.2%) of those applications made in Ireland?

Firstly. The small number of cases relative to Europe are due primarily to geography. The majority of african immigrants seeking asylum arrive in boats in their thousands along the Med Coast. Only the well off have the resources to get all the way here and many more would come if they could.

Secondly, your assertion that the numbers are small is subjective. The issue of numbers is not about how many apply to Europe but rather how many we can cope with. Economically, socially, culturally etc. We don't know the answer to this because we haven't had any national debate on the issue. Anybody who questions the PC open borders agenda is a nazi.

My opinions refer to my direct experience in Africa and Africans only, and with respect, I get the distinct impression from following these boards that few people here have had similar exposure.

djpbarry

milmo wrote: »

...you must be open to the fact that human nature is flawed and that people are capable of exploiting our system...

I don't think anyone has denied the fact that our system is being exploited. It is the extent of the problem that is being debated.

milmo wrote: »

The issue of numbers is not about how many apply to Europe but rather how many we can cope with. Economically, socially, culturally etc.

Over the 5-year period 2000-05, an average of 1,362 asylum-seekers were newly recognised as refugees in Ireland per annum. That's about 0.03% of our current population - I think we can handle that. Unless you can give some reasons why this number is too high (if you believe this to be the case)?

cabinteelytom

There will be people in slums (there's homeless people and rough sleepers here) and people at the bottom of Nigerian society, but nigerians are not pitiable people who need rescued from their country.
No part of nigeria is occupied. This large country is not menaced by powerful neighbours or subject to 'UN sanctions'.
Most of it's indigenous cultures and social structures survived a relatively brief period of colonialism. These institutions are arguably more important than the World Bank and IMF; they give people self-esteem and immediate support in a crisis.
Nigeria has not in Oliver St John Gogarty's phrase 'had everything of value stolen out of it centuries ago'. That might change now that there are roads to the interior.
This country posseses the world's 10th largest reserves of oil- very useful with 'peak oil' one or two years away. The government has held talks with suppliers about building it's first nuclear power plants. Six of nigeria's states have deposits of uranium ore- as yet, like most of it's mineral resources, unmined. The prospects for solar energy...
The land area is 13 times that of the Rep of Ireland, much of it under cultivation.
If this place remains peaceful, it has every prospect of a good future; and most of nigeria's 125 million people are at home building that future.