Asylum Seekers in Ireland

GuanYin

OK, unless I see something other than Nigeria bashing on this thread, I think it may have run it's course.

I see not one mention of Romanian or Somalian asylum seekers here, who were the other two nationalities that were comparable to Nigerians in seeking asylum.

It could be that we have an uneducated bunch who are just referring to all black people as "Nigerians" or it could be people have some personal axes to grind against Nigerians. Either way, Romanian asylum seekers were close in number and noone has mentioned them.

walrusgumble

psi wrote: »

OK, unless I see something other than Nigeria bashing on this thread, I think it may have run it's course.

I see not one mention of Romanian or Somalian asylum seekers here, who were the other two nationalities that were comparable to Nigerians in seeking asylum.

It could be that we have an uneducated bunch who are just referring to all black people as "Nigerians" or it could be people have some personal axes to grind against Nigerians. Either way, Romanian asylum seekers were close in number and noone has mentioned them.

can i ask what nigerian bashing? some posts can be supported by country of origin information (sources relied upon by regugee authorities) that support the reason for many unfounded claims for asylum, from people who happen to be from nigeria, even if they are telling the truth as far as they are concerned.

if you check the stats, can be found on websites of the dept of justice, office of refugee applications commissioner and refugee appeals tribunal, the nigerians happen to make up a very substantial per centage of claims annually.

the reason you hear nothing from romania is because in europe, member states of the eu are not obliged to assess applications from fellow european union member states (unless something akin to kosovo or bosina would occur). romania would not have been allowed into the union if it had not implemented statutes such as the european convnetion on human rights, geneva convention on refugee status etc, or get up to the same standard as the rest of the eu. romania is not involved in any wars or civil unrest at this time. sources are statisfied that if one has problems in romania they can bring these complaints before the national police or higher authorities. moreover, it can seek redress at the european court of justice or european court of human rights. with regard to the roma community, there are credibility issues as to whether or not there rights would violate art 3 of the european convention on human rights in the sense described in these courts. they still have the right to access these courts.

as for somalia, like all refugee claims, the public do not really know how many claims that are made bar reviewing stats from the above mentioned sources as these issues are held in camera and in many cases, one may be successful at first instances (ie at r.a.c. stage) meaning it does not come to public attention as oppose to say a high court judicial review case. secondly, somalia IS/was recently (for the most of 2006) in a state of war, and many are unable to escape such risks to life.

whilst it maybe an issue that would cause disputes is that looking at the vast numbers of claims from nigeria as oppose to say somalia, and the fact that asylum experts such as james hathway and goodywin gill have reckonised that it is people of better means that can afford to flee their countries to europe. (often at great risk to their lives)

GuanYin

I take your point on Romania, but pre-2007, the record played on these boards was the same.

Your points are valid, but if you review this thread among the 50 others that have appeared here, you'll qucikly see that it comes down to a huge level of ignorance on the part of people who a) don't know what an asylum seeker is b) assume that immigrants are asylum seekers c)don't understand asylum laws d) don't understand immigration and customs.

And it *all* goes back to Nigeria - which is fair enough if you make a constructive point - but I haven't seen very many.

But then the thread isn't about Nigerians. It's about Asylum seekers in Ireland, and it was started on no small level of ignorance by the OP and as such I don't really see it has any purpose anymore. So it's going to be closed within 24 hours.

walrusgumble

psi wrote: »

I take your point on Romania, but pre-2007, the record played on these boards was the same.

Your points are valid, but if you review this thread among the 50 others that have appeared here, you'll qucikly see that it comes down to a huge level of ignorance on the part of people who a) don't know what an asylum seeker is b) assume that immigrants are asylum seekers c)don't understand asylum laws d) don't understand immigration and customs.

And it *all* goes back to Nigeria - which is fair enough if you make a constructive point - but I haven't seen very many.

But then the thread isn't about Nigerians. It's about Asylum seekers in Ireland, and it was started on no small level of ignorance by the OP and as such I don't really see it has any purpose anymore. So it's going to be closed within 24 hours.

oh ok fair enough i see your point,

i know it was not about nigerians as a whole. my previous posts about why nigerians are not getting asylum in response to comments on both sides of the argument (or to set the record straight as far as i have realible knowledge) as to the problems experienced in that country which is no barrel of laughs(nigerians as you say seem to be made of scape goats - depsite international law giving them the right to make an application - no such thing as bogus claim)

Hobbes

cabinteelytom wrote: »

There will be people in slums (there's homeless people and rough sleepers here)

We have had them for as long as I remember, but I do recall last year a report saying that Ireland had the lowest number of homeless in its history and one of the lowest in the EU.

Incidently, asylum seekers would not be homeless. They would be housed while being processed and if found begging would be deported. Refugees would also not be made intentionally homeless. As for immigrants they would have to prove they could afford to live here. I suspect of the majority of homeless in that demographic would most likely be illegal immigrants.

Hobbes

bob2000 wrote: »

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

Well lets see, in Ireland if you are an asylum seeker you cannot vote. If you are a refugee not sure (probably not, or limited). If you are an immigrant you cannot vote. If you are here on a visa (say due to marriage) then you are allowed vote in local elections but nothing else. Ilegal immigrants can't vote. If you have full citizenship you can vote but that isn't easy to get by any means anymore.

I think you need to have a quick think about how democracy works.

bob2000

Hobbes,

Apologies for your confusion. I appreciate that there were two whole sentences in the post.

djpbarry was wondering why the dutch were apprehensive about becoming a minority in their own country.

Obviously if they continue to allow large numbers who have no wish to assimilate further than acquiring an EU passport, they will become a minority.
(maybe some would argue that a morroccan with dutch citizenship who cannot speak dutch, knows nothing about dutch history & wants sharia law implemented in Holland is just as Dutch as martin jol - I wouldn't agree.)

oscarBravo

bob2000 wrote: »

Apologies for your confusion. I appreciate that there were two whole sentences in the post.

Did I stutter? I thought I was quite clear.

Hobbes

bob2000 wrote: »

Apologies for your confusion. I appreciate that there were two whole sentences in the post.

Most people are a capable of looking back and reading it. I did. I didn't see any added value to your second sentance. Prehaps you can point out where I am mistaken on how wrong you were? Or is just name calling all you are capable of?