Illegal immigration

Scofflaw

People need to read the Charter with respect to destination country in refugee cases before making factually unfounded assertions like that by Tom Rooney above.

In addition, people are failing almost entirely to discriminate between asylum applications and illegal immigration. An asylum applicant, whether their application is eventually successful or not, is by definition not an illegal immigrant - they are registered and known to the system, since otherwise they could not be making a legal application for asylum.

Concentration on asylum applicants - particularly African, particularly Nigerian - at the expense of virtually any other feature of immigration has at least one extremely obvious cause, and it has been displayed quite prominently on this thread.

moderately,
Scofflaw

TomRooney

Scofflaw wrote: »

People need to read the Charter with respect to destination country in refugee cases before making factually unfounded assertions like that by Tom Rooney above.

In addition, people are failing almost entirely to discriminate between asylum applications and illegal immigration. An asylum applicant, whether their application is eventually successful or not, is by definition not an illegal immigrant - they are registered and known to the system, since otherwise they could not be making a legal application for asylum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw are you denying that asylum applicants must make an application in the first safe country they arrive in?
Would you like me to show you the law in this regard?
Your infraction was out of order and just highlights your biased opinion on this issue and your agenda that is so thinly veiled.

TomRooney

Nodin wrote: »

We have the lowest rate of acceptance in Europe. I also find your fascination with Nigerians odd.

Well Nodin, that may have something to do with the fact that well over 90% of all applicants for asylum are so obviously false that they dont even merit investigation.

My fascination with Nigerians is due to the fact there are no direct flights between Nigeria and Ireland and the high prevalence of false claims that originate from Nigerians.

They enter Ireland illegally in most cases then claim asylum, it is simply illogical to think they accidentally ended up on the western edge of Europe by accident bypassing over 20 safe countries on their way.

ResearchWill

TomRooney wrote: »

The simple fact is there is not 1 single genuine Nigerian asylum seeker in Ireland, there are no direct flights from Nigeria to Ireland, Nigeria is a stable state relative to other African countries. A Nigerian would need a passport to leave their country yet somehow all of their documents seem to vanish shortly after they cross over the border around the 6 counties.

If you were running in fear for your life would you cross over countless numbers of countries, to fly to the UK to then illegally cross into Ireland in order to claim asylum?

Ireland's immigration and asylum policy is a farce and known internationally as a soft touch which when abused leads to a life of state financial support and housing.

What we have here is a chronic case of welfare tourism and nothing else, is it a coincidence that the decline in asylum applications from Nigeria correlates exactly with the Irish economic downturn and that the peak level of Nigerian asylum applications match Ireland's time of economic boom?
I think not.

This needs to change NOW!

Have you ever heard of Christoph Meili, look him up, if a Swiss Citizen can be granted Asylum in the USA after flying over half of Europe then there may be at least 1 Genuine Asylum seeker from Nigera, by the way the numbers accepted in Ireland from Nigeria is tiny.

Nodin

TomRooney wrote: »

Well Nodin, that may have something to do with the fact that well over 90% of all applicants for asylum are so obviously false that they dont even merit investigation..

So why then are you stating
"Ireland's immigration and asylum policy is a farce and known internationally as a soft touch which when abused leads to a life of state financial support and housing."?

Tom Rooney wrote:

My fascination with Nigerians is due to the fact there are no direct flights between Nigeria and Ireland and the high prevalence of false claims that originate from Nigerians.

They enter Ireland illegally in most cases then claim asylum, it is simply illogical to think they accidentally ended up on the western edge of Europe by accident bypassing over 20 safe countries on their way.

You're mistaken.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59465073&postcount=1
You can check the relevant information on a seperate source, as suits you, however the above is correct.

Scofflaw

TomRooney wrote: »

Scofflaw are you denying that asylum applicants must make an application in the first safe country they arrive in?
Would you like me to show you the law in this regard?
Your infraction was out of order and just highlights your biased opinion on this issue and your agenda that is so thinly veiled.

Three day ban, because in addition to reading up on 'first-country' rules, you also apparently need to read the Forum Charter, paying particular attention to the issues of arguing moderation on-thread, abusive PMs, and with respect to disseminating factually incorrect information after a warning.

With respect to the law on asylum applications and "first safe country" rules, there is no obligation on asylum seekers to make their "application in the first safe country they arrive in", as so many of those concerned about non-white immigration so regularly assert - or, rather, not using their definitions of 'country' and 'arrive in'.

An asylum seeker who transits through, say, Heathrow, and who does not pass through customs, has not entered the UK, any more than any business traveller passing through international transit facilities has entered the countries he/she passes through. Transit facilities are international areas. It is therefore perfectly possible for an asylum seeker to pass through Heathrow en route to Ireland without having ever entered the UK from the perspective of his/her asylum application.

If you don't know this, stop posting until you understand it. The mistake, and its refutation, are both common enough - if you're concerned about asylum seeking, you have no excuse for being in error.

moderately,
Scofflaw

walshb

I guess it begs the question as to why would they not enter Britain when already there? Maybe Ireland is that bit more attractive?

donkey balls

At least a few times a week I do see the GNIB escorting immigrants on to commercial flights at Dublin,These flights would mainly be going to LHR/CDG there has also been the odd charter flight to Lagos.
As for immigrants transiting through the likes of LHR from memory and going back a good few years ago,My self and the girl friend(non eu national) arrived at LHR from a eastern Euro country both of us in order to get to terminal 1 had to go through passport control.
There was a section for EU passport holders and one for non EU nationals so this would indicate that at some time while in transit you would have to show your passport in order to get to the other terminal.

Scofflaw

donkey balls wrote: »

At least a few times a week I do see the GNIB escorting immigrants on to commercial flights at Dublin,These flights would mainly be going to LHR/CDG there has also been the odd charter flight to Lagos.
As for immigrants transiting through the likes of LHR from memory and going back a good few years ago,My self and the girl friend(non eu national) arrived at LHR from a eastern Euro country both of us in order to get to terminal 1 had to go through passport control.
There was a section for EU passport holders and one for non EU nationals so this would indicate that at some time while in transit you would have to show your passport in order to get to the other terminal.

Showing your passport is not the same as immigration/customs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MadsL

2013 and people are still have difficulty understanding how few Asylum seekers Ireland accepts. Pretty sad that.

donkey balls

Scofflaw wrote: »

Showing your passport is not the same as immigration/customs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So you rock up to a desk in the arriving terminal which has a sign on it saying passport control if that is not immigration control then I don't know what is;)
Ok maybe customs don't get to check a passengers luggage during the transit as the bags can be checked from the origin airport to the destination without the passenger even handling them.
I'm basing my opinion on fact having worked for an airline and transiting through LHR on a regular basis for a few years ago.

Scofflaw

donkey balls wrote: »

So you rock up to a desk in the arriving terminal which has a sign on it saying passport control if that is not immigration control then I don't know what is;)
Ok maybe customs don't get to check a passengers luggage during the transit as the bags can be checked from the origin airport to the destination without the passenger even handling them.
I'm basing my opinion on fact having worked for an airline and transiting through LHR on a regular basis for a few years ago.

Hmm. Did your girlfriend have a UK visa? I suspect that all she had to provide was evidence that she was in transit to Ireland, which means that she was "in transit" and hadn't legally "entered the UK" as such. Transit visa would be the same thing - what matters is the legal status of the person, not what physical barriers they may have gone through.

You may not have needed a visa to transit, if your girlfriend isn't from a visa-requiring country, but she will still have been in transit, even if she left the airport to go to another airport for a flight on - the UK has special rules in respect of the Common Travel Area which cloud the picture slightly, generally in the direction of further leeway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

miss tickle

donkey balls wrote: »

At least a few times a week I do see the GNIB escorting immigrants on to commercial flights at Dublin,These flights would mainly be going to LHR/CDG there has also been the odd charter flight to Lagos.
As for immigrants transiting through the likes of LHR from memory and going back a good few years ago,My self and the girl friend(non eu national) arrived at LHR from a eastern Euro country both of us in order to get to terminal 1 had to go through passport control.
There was a section for EU passport holders and one for non EU nationals so this would indicate that at some time while in transit you would have to show your passport in order to get to the other terminal.

I haven't read the rest of the thread but a well known route for asylum seekers to Ireland is via France. Controls are very lax especially at Ferry Ports but also Airports. The reason being that France is rarely the final destination due to its treatment of asylum seekers Things are so lax that UK customs have a constance presence to prevent the problem ending up on their own doorstep via hauliers etc.

donkey balls

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Did your girlfriend have a UK visa? I suspect that all she had to provide was evidence that she was in transit to Ireland, which means that she was "in transit" and hadn't legally "entered the UK" as such. Transit visa would be the same thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

She had a visa to work in the UK on other occasions while arriving in either T3/4 from Moscow we cleared passport control at those terminals before heading towards T1,Now at any point while leaving the arriving terminal I could have easily headed in to London city.

Noel Kinsella

Nodin wrote: »

We have the lowest rate of acceptance in Europe. I also find your fascination with Nigerians odd.

NODIN I find "YOUR" fascination with Nigerians also "VERY" odd. Every time I see something about immigration , asylum, nigerians YOU are there with your biased opinions.

Noel Kinsella

TomRooney wrote: »

Scofflaw are you denying that asylum applicants must make an application in the first safe country they arrive in?
Would you like me to show you the law in this regard?
Your infraction was out of order and just highlights your biased opinion on this issue and your agenda that is so thinly veiled.

Opinions seem very "pro" nigerian, refugee, asylum seeker etc with a handful of posters AND moderators here on boards. I dont think the threads here reflect real opinions or the real world at all. It is so obvious the tag teaming that certain posters do to try and CRUSH anybody who does not buy into their agenda. But I do respect the moderators difficulties in having to be 100% PC so much so that it verges on "positive discrimination" towards anybody thats not Irish.

Nodin

Noel Kinsella wrote: »

NODIN I find "YOUR" fascination with Nigerians also "VERY" odd. Every time I see something about immigration , asylum, nigerians YOU are there with your biased opinions.

If I've said anything thats factually incorrect, please highlight it.

MadsL

Noel Kinsella wrote: »

NODIN I find "YOUR" fascination with Nigerians also "VERY" odd. Every time I see something about immigration , asylum, nigerians YOU are there with your biased opinions.

Maybe he shares my distaste for prejudiced opinions? I tend to pop up too...
Baised opinions = opinions. :rolleyes:

Death and Taxes

Noel Kinsella wrote: »

Opinions seem very "pro" nigerian, refugee, asylum seeker etc with a handful of posters AND moderators here on boards. I dont think the threads here reflect real opinions or the real world at all. It is so obvious the tag teaming that certain posters do to try and CRUSH anybody who does not buy into their agenda. But I do respect the moderators difficulties in having to be 100% PC so much so that it verges on "positive discrimination" towards anybody thats not Irish.

Sorry, but this thread is about illegal Immigration, not about the the validity of the opinions of those who oppose racism and the promulgation of incorrect and inflammatory information regarding asylum seekers and refugees.

AlekSmart

MadsL wrote: »

2013 and people are still have difficulty understanding how few Asylum seekers Ireland accepts. Pretty sad that.

I would suggest that "People" are indeed aware of how "few" asylum-seekers Ireland accepts and,in the main,rather than being "sad",are generally supportive of this policy.

Ireland,is a Country with substantial economic,social,and fiscal issues,all contributing to serious problems in catering for it's existing population,I'm confident that it's "People" are happier that we at last are cutting our scarce cloth to suit our own measure.

My contention remains that Ireland has consistently met (and continues to so do) it's obligations to offer asylum and succour to those from foreign shores who are deserving of it.

However,what benefit is it to offer unrestricted easy-access to,what amounts to,the "Poor,Hungry and Oppressed" of the World simply on the basis that they appear to be from some far-flung foreign place which has,often unspecified oppression being visited upon it's citizens.

The sudden arrival of Ireland as a destination of choice for Asylum,which commenced in the mid 1990's,could never have been sustained,even if our Boom had continued unabated.

To suggest,as has been already,that revoking the refugee status of 57 individuals in one year in some way represents evidence of a hardening of attitude or official clamp-down is stretching the boundaries of reality.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0122/1224329146379.html

Whilst it is gratifying that the State saw fit to rescind previously granted refugee status,it also begs the question as to how these people managed to accquire that status initially.

One valid reason may well be revealed thank's to the belated co-operation between Ireland and the U.K.,which has already been of significant assistance in rooting out fraudulent applicants...

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/twothirds-of-failed-asylum-seekers-had-used-false-identities-3113071.html

Cross-checks carried out by gardai using British fingerprint records revealed that about 1,300 out of 2,000 failed asylum seekers investigated were known to Britain's Border Agency under a different name.

Of those looked at, about a third had given a different nationality to the UK authorities.

The nature of the business (for that's what it is) plan can be gleaned from this quote...

They operated by turning up at the British visa office in Dar es Salaam to have their photographs and fingerprints taken and to submit their Tanzanian passports for inspection. The passports were then determined to be valid.

This allowed them to fly to Britain on a valid visa and they then arrived here and claimed asylum, some on the grounds that they were facing persecution in Somalia.

With the help of the fingerprint checks, authorities in Dublin have been able to challenge such applicants on the basis they had been officially recognised as Tanzanians by the British.

It can also be argued that one of the reasons for the substantial reduction in Nigerian centred applications might just be this....

At present, details of Irish visa applications lodged in countries such as Nigeria, Ghana and Pakistan are also being referred to Britain for cross-reference against their immigration databases.

I contend that this increased co-operation may well have been triggered or hastened by the high-profile Izevbekhai case,and the questions raised by it.

However I see these developments in a positive light,as should those genuinely seeking to provide help and welfare to those in desperate need,simply because it actually provides for realistic and sustainable levels of assistance rather than the something for everyone policy which has so damaged our national physche relating to immigration/asylum/integration.

K-9

Noel Kinsella wrote: »

Opinions seem very "pro" nigerian, refugee, asylum seeker etc with a handful of posters AND moderators here on boards. I dont think the threads here reflect real opinions or the real world at all. It is so obvious the tag teaming that certain posters do to try and CRUSH anybody who does not buy into their agenda. But I do respect the moderators difficulties in having to be 100% PC so much so that it verges on "positive discrimination" towards anybody thats not Irish.

The Dublin Regulation is not opinion, it is law. Some may be against that law, but them not liking how easy it is to travel to Dublin via Heathrow (hell it is often cheaper to fly to Ireland than get a train to some major UK cities) still does not make Nigerians doing that illegal, so therefor it is outside the scope of this thread.

Give out all you want about the anti-Irish, liberal bias of the Boards.ie mods and posters like the Bishop in Fr. Ted and the anti-clerical bias of the liberal mejia, none of that changes the above.

Death and Taxes

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would suggest that "People" are indeed aware of how "few" asylum-seekers Ireland accepts and,in the main,rather than being "sad",are generally supportive of this policy.

Ireland,is a Country with substantial economic,social,and fiscal issues,all contributing to serious problems in catering for it's existing population,I'm confident that it's "People" are happier that we at last are cutting our scarce cloth to suit our own measure.

My contention remains that Ireland has consistently met (and continues to so do) it's obligations to offer asylum and succour to those from foreign shores who are deserving of it.

However,what benefit is it to offer unrestricted easy-access to,what amounts to,the "Poor,Hungry and Oppressed" of the World simply on the basis that they appear to be from some far-flung foreign place which has,often unspecified oppression being visited upon it's citizens.

The sudden arrival of Ireland as a destination of choice for Asylum,which commenced in the mid 1990's,could never have been sustained,even if our Boom had continued unabated.

To suggest,as has been already,that revoking the refugee status of 57 individuals in one year in some way represents evidence of a hardening of attitude or official clamp-down is stretching the boundaries of reality.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0122/1224329146379.html

Whilst it is gratifying that the State saw fit to rescind previously granted refugee status,it also begs the question as to how these people managed to accquire that status initially.

One valid reason may well be revealed thank's to the belated co-operation between Ireland and the U.K.,which has already been of significant assistance in rooting out fraudulent applicants...

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/twothirds-of-failed-asylum-seekers-had-used-false-identities-3113071.html



The nature of the business (for that's what it is) plan can be gleaned from this quote...




It can also be argued that one of the reasons for the substantial reduction in Nigerian centred applications might just be this....



I contend that this increased co-operation may well have been triggered or hastened by the high-profile Izevbekhai case,and the questions raised by it.

However I see these developments in a positive light,as should those genuinely seeking to provide help and welfare to those in desperate need,simply because it actually provides for realistic and sustainable levels of assistance rather than the something for everyone policy which has so damaged our national physche relating to immigration/asylum/integration.

You do understand that asylum, immigration, and integration are three wholly seperate issues?

K-9

Noel Kinsella wrote: »

Opinions seem very "pro" nigerian, refugee, asylum seeker etc with a handful of posters AND moderators here on boards. I dont think the threads here reflect real opinions or the real world at all. It is so obvious the tag teaming that certain posters do to try and CRUSH anybody who does not buy into their agenda. But I do respect the moderators difficulties in having to be 100% PC so much so that it verges on "positive discrimination" towards anybody thats not Irish.

Also do not post in this thread again, you already had an on thread warning about posting about moderation on this thread, when we've a feedback thread set up for any concerns. That you ignored that polite warning and continued to do so means you can't reply any more to this thread. Other posters with concerns about immigration can post here perfectly fine and with no issues.

AlekSmart

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

You do understand that asylum, immigration, and integration are three wholly seperate issues?

I do.

Does this preclude using the terms in the one sentence or in discussing those issues common to them ?

Death and Taxes

AlekSmart wrote: »

I do.

Does this preclude using the terms in the one sentence or in discussing those issues common to them ?

Well it does rather muddy the waters when the thread is about illegal immigration, something that has little or nothing to do with asylum, or integration ( a policy I have little time for).

djpbarry

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ireland,is a Country with substantial economic,social,and fiscal issues,all contributing to serious problems in catering for it's existing population,I'm confident that it's "People" are happier that we at last are cutting our scarce cloth to suit our own measure.

You're suggesting that Ireland has, in recent years, somehow implemented measures to reduce the number of asylum applications it receives? Because I'm not aware of any such measures (which would probably contravene international law).

walshb

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

You do understand that asylum, immigration, and integration are three wholly seperate issues?

C'mon, they are very much intertwined and related.

There are illegal immigrants here who are integrating into Irish society. One follows the other.

There are also asylum seekers who are not genuine, who are bogus, and who are trying to immigate here under false pretences, who would/will then integrate into Irish society.

Death and Taxes

walshb wrote: »

C'mon, they are very much intertwined and related.

There are illegal immigrants here who are integrating into Irish society. One follows the other.

Ok explain to me how integration has any relavence to legal immigration in a multi-cultural society, and how that has any relavence for the asylum process?

walshb

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

Ok explain to me how integration has any relavence to legal immigration in a multi-cultural society, and how that has any relavence for the asylum process?

Legal immigration is not the same as illegal.

AlekSmart

djpbarry wrote: »

You're suggesting that Ireland has, in recent years, somehow implemented measures to reduce the number of asylum applications it receives? Because I'm not aware of any such measures (which would probably contravene international law).

Not exactly djpbarry,what I see is a belated and long required bit of reality being returned to the process.

The cross-checking of fingerprint records between the UK and Ourselves,for example,has rapidly led to long suspected wheezes being proven and their perpetrators given the bums rush they heartily deserve.

The reality for a number of years now is that the Irish Asylum Process has struggled under the weight of a two-pronged offensive from professional People Traffickers and simultaneously,solo asylum surfers who,as has been noted,tend to target the least effectively policed systems.

Each and every one of the high-profile cases such as Izevbekhai vs Ireland,syphoned off vast resources which could,and should,have been disbursed to those genuine cases who did'nt have a phalanx of media savvy bandwagon jumpers all eager to get one over on the evil Irish State Empire.

djpbarry

AlekSmart wrote: »

Not exactly djpbarry,what I see is a belated and long required bit of reality being returned to the process.

Do you? Because as far as I can see, very little has changed with regard to the Irish asylum process. It seems to me you're just assuming something has changed because the number of applications has declined.

AlekSmart wrote: »

The reality for a number of years now is that the Irish Asylum Process has struggled under the weight of a two-pronged offensive from professional People Traffickers and simultaneously,solo asylum surfers who,as has been noted,tend to target the least effectively policed systems.

Then why has Ireland received so few asylum applications relative to other European countries?

ResearchWill

djpbarry wrote: »

Do you? Because as far as I can see, very little has changed with regard to the Irish asylum process. It seems to me you're just assuming something has changed because the number of applications has declined.
Then why has Ireland received so few asylum applications relative to other European countries?

Well this is one those situations where what seem like two opposite points are both true. The first point ireland receives and received the lowest numbers of Asylum seekers across the EU. The second point the Irish system struggled with the applications received, up untill mid late 90's ireland had very few Asylum seekers and most persons who had benefited from Asylum were UN refugees, Vietnam being one example. Then in less than 5 years a non existent system had to deal with 12000 applications per year. It took time to put resources in place to deal with that.

Now for a many reasons, applications last year went below 1000 and are still dropping. I would not be supprised if total applications next year go below 750 and within a few years are in the low hundreds. So as a issue good or bad it is disappearing.

Death and Taxes

walshb wrote: »

C'mon, they are very much intertwined and related.

There are illegal immigrants here who are integrating into Irish society. One follows the other. Really?

There are also asylum seekers who are not genuine, who are bogus, and who are trying to immigate here under false pretences (if they are not genuine they will not be given leave to remain or subsidiary protection), who would/will then integrate into Irish society (How if their application for asylum is refused?).[/QUOTE]

I think you are getting confused between Asylum seekers, Refugees, and illegal immigrants.

ResearchWill

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

walshb wrote: »

C'mon, they are very much intertwined and related.

There are illegal immigrants here who are integrating into Irish society. One follows the other. Really?

There are also asylum seekers who are not genuine, who are bogus, and who are trying to immigate here under false pretences (if they are not genuine they will not be given leave to remain or subsidiary protection), who would/will then integrate into Irish society (How if their application for asylum is refused?).[/QUOTE]

I think you are getting confused between Asylum seekers, Refugees, and illegal immigrants.

You do not understand the immigration system, a refused Asylum seeker can apply and some do get approved for Subsidary protection or humanitarian leave.

A person may not satisfy the Asylum test, but may satisfy Subsidary protection, an example a person from Syria, is not at risk because of one of the convention grounds, so not entitled to Asylum, but as the country is a war zone he is at risk of indiscriminate violence so is entitled to Subsidary protection.

Humanitarian leave may be given to an person say who was refused Asylum but say has personal circumstances that mean he should be allowed to stay, maybe family connections etc. so to be clear all 3 applications are separate and while refused for one a person may qualify for another.

walshb

In a nutshell, this country is extremely generous and tolerant to any asylum seekers (genuine or not) who come here. They are given every single opportunity to remain, and in cases, they are entitled to appeal after appeal after appeal. It's a great country to exploit.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

In a nutshell, this country is extremely generous and tolerant to any asylum seekers (genuine or not) who come here.

Relative to where?

Death and Taxes

ResearchWill wrote: »

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

You do not understand the immigration system, a refused Asylum seeker can apply and some do get approved for Subsidary protection or humanitarian leave.

A person may not satisfy the Asylum test, but may satisfy Subsidary protection, an example a person from Syria, is not at risk because of one of the convention grounds, so not entitled to Asylum, but as the country is a war zone he is at risk of indiscriminate violence so is entitled to Subsidary protection.

Humanitarian leave may be given to an person say who was refused Asylum but say has personal circumstances that mean he should be allowed to stay, maybe family connections etc. so to be clear all 3 applications are separate and while refused for one a person may qualify for another.

I understand that. My point was that if they get any of the above they are not Bogus as the poster described.

ResearchWill

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

ResearchWill wrote: »

I understand that. My point was that if they get any of the above they are not Bogus as the poster described.

Now I understand, but it is possible for a bogus asylum seeker to get a legal permission to remain.

walshb

Folks seem to want to make out that the system is perfect and only the legit claims get through and that nobody is bending the rules or conning the ststem. There are many many here that are bogus and not eligible to remain, There are cracks in the system. Cracks that cost the state serious money.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

Folks seem to want to make out that the system is perfect...

Who said the system is perfect?

walshb wrote: »

There are many many here that are bogus and not eligible to remain...

Prove it.

I couldn’t help noticing you skipped over my last question:

djpbarry wrote: »

walshb wrote: »

In a nutshell, this country is extremely generous and tolerant to any asylum seekers (genuine or not) who come here. They are given every single opportunity to remain, and in cases, they are entitled to appeal after appeal after appeal. It's a great country to exploit.

Relative to where?

Scofflaw

walshb wrote: »

Folks seem to want to make out that the system is perfect and only the legit claims get through and that nobody is bending the rules or conning the ststem. There are many many here that are bogus and not eligible to remain, There are cracks in the system. Cracks that cost the state serious money.

Sigh. Right, let's have some numbers on that "many many" please. Enough of these finger in the air/feel it in my gut/a friend told me/I knew one once claims.

And let's have some comparisons with other countries' asylum system rates of acceptance/rejection, numbers of appeals, etc, too.

If you can't back it up, please don't claim it. Either "side" may provide the figures, but without any figures, this all comes down to a question of prejudice on both sides, and such "discussions" simply go round in circles with people waving their hands ever more furiously.

moderately,
Scofflaw

walshb

http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/factfile.html

The lack of deportations for failed claims is alarming. Where are the fails? Why do they remain in the system?

Death and Taxes

walshb wrote: »

http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/factfile.html

The lack of deportations for failed claims is alarming. Where are the fails? Why do they remain in the system?

Oh, lovely, a link to Irelands most famous anti-immigration racist website, well obviously their figures will be unbiased!

walshb

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

Oh, lovely, a link to Irelands most famous anti-immigration racist website, well obviously their figures will be unbiased!

Well, are they racist because you disagree with their view? Care to point out where they are racist?

Scofflaw

walshb wrote: »

http://www.immigrationcontrol.org/factfile.html

The lack of deportations for failed claims is alarming. Where are the fails? Why do they remain in the system?

Well, we're not that likely to find out from an agenda-driven source. The ICP's claim that "only 1 in 5 deportation orders is implemented" requires independent verification, or at the very least triangulation with other non-neutral claims.

moderately,
Scofflaw

AlekSmart

djpbarry wrote: »

Relative to where?

Relative to,I would suggest,reality.

I would see almost no point in comparing Irelands acceptance statistics with any other EU or even broader European Country.

Irelands position in the mainstream EEC and now EU has always been acknowledged,by successive European Union administrations, as significantly different and challenging.

It was/is,after all,why we were allocated so much funding from the same EEC/EU to drag our infrastructure to even the basic EU levels.

I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to suggest we should have used much of this funding to "Improve" our Asylum/Refugee/Immigration (I Know,I know,I know :rolleyes:) systems rather than attempting to fashion a mainland European style democracy out of the last Isolated European Parish before New York.

Ireland has a significantly lower capability to service the Asylum market,which is why Ireland needs to be robust and upfront about the belated new Asylum Realpolitik.

All we can hope for currently is that the downward trend in applications continues and even accellerates,as if it manages to restart and return to the levels of the mid 2000's then no amount of EU/IMP bailout funding will be enough.

AlekSmart

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, we're not that likely to find out from an agenda-driven source. The ICP's claim that "only 1 in 5 deportation orders is implemented" requires independent verification, or at the very least triangulation with other non-neutral claims.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I'm unsure if Dáil Eireann can be considered non agenda-driven now,let alone in 2004,from whence this account comes....

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2005/04/12/00007.asp

As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, failed asylum seekers do not have a right to remain in the State but these people are not snatched arbitrarily or suddenly off the streets. Before I make a deportation order, the person in question is given three options. He or she can leave the State voluntarily, consent to the making of a deportation order or make representations within 15 days as to why he or she should be allowed to remain in the State. Assistance regarding voluntary departure is underpinned by special programmes established in co-operation with IOM. For three years, up to 31 December 2004, 1,879 voluntary returns have been accommodated by IOM in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The entire file is then submitted to my office for a decision. It is brought from Burgh Quay to my office at St. Stephen’s Green for that purpose. The volume of such files can be understood from the fact since January 2001, in the region of 10,200 deportation orders have been signed by me or my predecessor.During 2004, the number of individual cases varied from ten to 20 on each working day.

In relation to cases on hand, only 900 cases are in the asylum system for more than six months. This can be contrasted with the fact that there were some 6,500 cases over six months in the system in September 2001 and that

some 25,000 asylum applications have been received in total in the State since January 2002

.

Overall, in the region of €375 million was spent on asylum related services in 2004, a small proportion of which also relates to services provided for other non-nationals. This figure was compiled following consultations with range of Departments and offices which provide services to asylum seekers, namely, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, including the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Reception and Integration Agency and the Refugee Legal Service, the Departments of Social and Family Affairs, Health and Children, Education and Science, the Office of Public Works and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

This scale of investment leaves us with an asylum determination system which compares with the best in the world in terms of fairness, decision making, determination, structure and support services. It is also worth pointing out that it still [28]remains a fact that over 90% of the applicants for asylum, after been through a system which is highly regarded internationally, including by the UNHCR, are found not to be in need of international protection.

Yes,it's from a decade ago,yes it features long gone Ministerial figures,but...apres les deluge,...??


Mind you by 2010,it seems we were still tring to get the floodwaters under control....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/just-23pc-of-deportation-orders-are-carried-out-2316905.html

Since 2005, some 5,943 deportation orders have been issued, but up to June of this year only 1,413 asylum seekers were deported

Others appeal the decision in the courts, and since 2004 the State has spent €56.26m funding the Refugee Legal Service, a dedicated office under the auspices of the Legal Aid Board that provides independent legal services to people seeking asylum in Ireland.

K-9

walshb wrote: »

Folks seem to want to make out that the system is perfect and only the legit claims get through and that nobody is bending the rules or conning the ststem. There are many many here that are bogus and not eligible to remain, There are cracks in the system. Cracks that cost the state serious money.

The system isn't perfect, I doubt anybody would have pointed to the 57 deportations or whatever the figure is, if they had a preconceived notion it was perfect.

I do find the anti or stricter immigration side do sometimes set up impossible or idealistic standards to attain. An example on this thread was people saying that dubious claims get through the system. Fair enough point. When somebody points out that yes, dubious claims were indeed found and people deported you get:

AlekSmart wrote:

Whilst it is gratifying that the State saw fit to rescind previously granted refugee status,it also begs the question as to how these people managed to accquire that status initially.

Yes, but nobody claimed that false claims don't get through, no system can guarantee no false cases, otherwise no country would bother investigating cases that are granted. It's accepted the system will make errors. It's almost as if an impossible standard is set up, that is in no way possible to achieve, so when the system fails we can point to how open to abuse the system is. And away we go again with the circular argument.

Icepick

As for the legacy stuff, there are very few things FF did not mess up.
As for current situation, it looks standard and under control.
Is this basically another 'dey tuk our jabs' thread?

AlekSmart

Icepick wrote: »

As for the legacy stuff, there are very few things FF did not mess up.
As for current situation, it looks standard and under control.
Is this basically another 'dey tuk our jabs' thread?

And what about gender equality...dey took our wimmin too y'know....Sigh ...if only it was as simple as that.

However dragging it into an FF bashing scenario invariably means there'll be a banker along shortly !!! :eek: