Rally challenges citizenship restrictions

Nodin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not on a transfer, no.

dj jarvis

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Wow, you really put an interesting spin on that didn't you. It's against the law for Asylum seekers to get a job in Ireland, and they could be jailed for working. That is what she's complaining about -- as she clearly said she could've worked under apartheid but not in Ireland.

She wants to be taken OFF benefits and look for work/place to live. And yet your outraged...:rolleyes:

she has not won the right to do these things , that is why she is not allowed
if she wins asylum then off she goes , if not bye bye

why does she think SHE should have a right the others dont ?
i think the length of time she has been waiting is a farce , but she cant work until she is cleared - its as simple as that

as far as i know , no European country lets asylum seekers work

AnonoBoy

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

I would object to the use of squalid for a start. There may have been a few isolated cases of sub standard accommodation, the vast majority do not live in squalor.

A whole family (or families) living in one room is not squalid? This occurs regularly, not in isolated cases.

As for working, it is entirely legitimate that they not work, they are undocumented at this point and they are well aware of this restriction when applying, it should not come as a surprise.

I'm not saying they should be allowed work while in direct provision - I'm saying that the amount of time people spend in direct provision should be decreased, the system needs to be overhauled. Then people can leave Ireland or start to actually live their lives here. At the moment it's not living.


There's more people in direct provision in Ireland than there are in our prisons.

Serious time for an overhaul.

Your attitude seems to be let them rot for a few years and send them back?

Since you don't want some of these people here wouldn't you rather their cases get dealt with quickly and then they could be sent back quicker?

RDM_83 again

Nodin wrote: »

No, those who take transfer flights can claim here. EU travel area has nothing to do with it.

thats my point because those people never clear immigration so they don't actually "enter" another country.
However this only works if they have a ticket booked for ireland.
Otherwise they fall foul of either receiving a visa once they pass arrival gates to buy another ticket from another Dublin reg country or they enter another Dublin reg country illegally.
The european free travel thing was to do with the fact that those people don't need any sort of visa so they would be the exception.

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

thats my point because those people never clear immigration so they don't actually "enter" another country.
However this only works if they have a ticket booked for ireland.
Otherwise they fall foul of either receiving a visa once they pass arrival gates to buy another ticket from another Dublin reg country or they enter another Dublin reg country illegally.
............

Indeed. Thus you don't have apply at the first country you physically arrive in, but at the one that's your intended destination.

smurfjed

but at the one that's your intended destination

Then its not asylum, you are not running for your safety, but choosing the destination country. If they can afford the ticket and have the appropriate visa to travel to Ireland, then please explain why Ireland should accept them?

I know a Syrian acquaintance who worked outside her country as a flight attendant, due to the situation in her country, she decided to seek asylum in Sweden, she paid 5000 euro to agents to move her from Switzerland overland to Sweden. In the process she lost her passport so that they won't know what she was actually working in a safe country earning good money. She will spend about 2 years in a hostel in Sweden before her case is finished, then they may accept her or send her back. I'm disgusted by her behaviour, but from stories that we are hearing, this is becoming extremely common for Syrians, Iraqis etc.

RDM_83 again

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed. Thus you don't have apply at the first country you physically arrive in, but at the one that's your intended destination.

Hmmm I think "intended destination" misrepresents the rules, to avoid either getting stung by either of the two rules i mentioned they would have had to have actually bought a ticket to ireland in a country outside the Dublin Regs as AFAIK ticket sales are outside the immigration gates.
This means it should be ridiculously easy to prove that someone has satisfied the initial requirements for claiming asylum because they will have all the travel doxumentation on them unless they were robbed in the heavily policed past the departure gates area of Frankfurt, Paris or Heathrow etc

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

smurfjed

Good question Fred, we got this news from her room mate, my understanding is that she had to "get lost" in Europe prior to getting to Sweden so that it didn't appear that she got there legally, the agents supplied her with all of the required background to prove her story that she was fleeing persecution. They also gave her a support structure in Sweden to fight her case.

smurfjed

This means it should be ridiculously easy to prove that someone has satisfied the initial requirements for claiming asylum because they will have all the travel doxumentation on them

In certain European countries, immigration meet passengers from certain destinations right at the aircraft door, that way they know that the person has a valid visa, if not, they cannot claim asylum as they are still on the territory of the arriving airline.
For passengers from certain countries traveling to the USA, i have seen the airline actually holding their passports during the flight, the passports are handed over to immigration in the USA, this way they cannot be flushed down the toilets.
I cannot see why a South African should be granted asylum for any reason.

Arthur Beesley

AnonoBoy wrote: »

A whole family (or families) living in one room is not squalid? This occurs regularly, not in isolated cases.



I'm not saying they should be allowed work while in direct provision - I'm saying that the amount of time people spend in direct provision should be decreased, the system needs to be overhauled. Then people can leave Ireland or start to actually live their lives here. At the moment it's not living.


There's more people in direct provision in Ireland than there are in our prisons.

Serious time for an overhaul.

Your attitude seems to be let them rot for a few years and send them back?

Since you don't want some of these people here wouldn't you rather their cases get dealt with quickly and then they could be sent back quicker?

The problem as referenced earlier is that these people go to any lengths to extend the appeals process. It's their choice to continue appealing once they have been denied.

Nodin

smurfjed wrote: »

Then its not asylum, .......

It is. You just don't like it.

RDM83_Again wrote:

Hmmm I think "intended destination" misrepresents the rules, to avoid either
getting stung by either of the two rules i mentioned they would have had to have
actually bought a ticket to ireland in a country outside the Dublin Regs as
AFAIK ticket sales are outside the immigration gates.

...because they couldn't have booked tickets over the internet, or had them arranged.......

smurfjed

It is. You just don't like it.

True.... I just cannot understand how someone can travel from the Middle East across the whole of Europe and claim asylum in Ireland, and i certainly don't understand why the Irish society should be made pay for their accommodation and legal support.
In the case of people from the Middle East, why don't they claim asylum in Saudi Arabia or Qatar?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

smurfjed wrote: »

True.... I just cannot understand how someone can travel from the Middle East across the whole of Europe and claim asylum in Ireland, and i certainly don't understand why the Irish society should be made pay for their accommodation and legal support.
In the case of people from the Middle East, why don't they claim asylum in Saudi Arabia or Qatar?

Again, you being unable to understand and it being perfectly legal are not the same thing.

You do realise that various middle eastern countries are packed with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees? Yet you're here complaining about the tiny number allowed in Ireland?

AnonoBoy

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

The problem as referenced earlier is that these people go to any lengths to extend the appeals process. It's their choice to continue appealing once they have been denied.

But everyone on Direct Provision isn't going through a lengthy appeals process. There are people who have been on it for years and haven't even had a denial. They're still waiting for their case to be heard. That's not their fault, they haven't lengthened out the process through repeated appeals.

Your using phrases like "these people" just highlights the fact that you think all asylum seekers are the same and operate under the same mindset when in fact they don't.

"All gays" "All Irish" "All British" "All immigrants" - tarring everyone with the same brush is not only ignorant, it's inaccurate.

mrsbyrne

bear1 wrote: »

I'm curious.
I'm Irish and have a Polish wife. If my child was to be born in Poland for example is he/she entitled immediately to Irish citizenship?
Stupid question I know, just wondering.

Your child would be entitled to an Irish passport because you are an Irish citizen. Doesn't matter where she is born. Possibly entitled to Polish passport too.

RDM_83 again

Nodin wrote: »

...because they couldn't have booked tickets over the internet, or had them arranged.......

Ok they might buy two separate tickets or whatever, but it doesn't change my point that they would have to have them bought before the first flight in all likelihood and that if the Dublin Regs are being followed there is only a couple of hours (unless your thinking of that Tom Hanks film) in which any evidence of their travel documentation can go missing in an extremely well policed area.
There is no reason anybody could legitimately claim that anybody arriving in Ireland that can't show easily checked official travel documentation isn't breaking the Dublin Regs themselves

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok they might buy two separate tickets or whatever, but it doesn't change my point that they would have to have them bought before the first flight in all likelihood and that if the Dublin Regs are being followed there is only a couple of hours (unless your thinking of that Tom Hanks film) in which any evidence of their travel documentation can go missing in an extremely well policed area.
There is no reason anybody could legitimately claim that anybody arriving in Ireland that can't show easily checked official travel documentation isn't breaking the Dublin Regs themselves

I don't understand that last part.

The fact is that people arrive here having done what I outlined, have made applications and have had them accepted.

donkey balls

Speaking from experience anytime I transit through an airport like Heathrow for example my passport was checked in both T3 & T4 before heading on to Dublin,Also as an ex airline employee while traveling on company aircraft my passport would be checked by my colleagues before boarding the aircraft.
The same happens with every airline that I have traveled on no passport no flight so I have always being amused how people wanting to claim asylum have no official documents on them,Saying that the GNIB over the last few years are busy with deportations whether it be using commercial flights or charter flights organised with other EU countries.

smurfjed

Yet you're here complaining about the tiny number allowed in Ireland?

I have no problem with Ireland accepting asylum seekers by going to the camps that are presently operated by the Red Cross or similar, but i do have a problem with people seeking out Ireland for "economic asylum".

You do realise that various middle eastern countries are packed with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees?

Sure, i know of people that have family members in those camps, but ask yourself how many of these people are allowed to enter and integrate into those societies?

No Pants

AnonoBoy wrote: »

But everyone on Direct Provision isn't going through a lengthy appeals process. There are people who have been on it for years and haven't even had a denial. They're still waiting for their case to be heard. That's not their fault, they haven't lengthened out the process through repeated appeals.

That's not on. These people should be allowed a fair hearing in a reasonable timeframe, but like a lot of things in Ireland, it's probably underfunded.

rgossip30

donkey balls wrote: »

Speaking from experience anytime I transit through an airport like Heathrow for example my passport was checked in both T3 & T4 before heading on to Dublin,Also as an ex airline employee while traveling on company aircraft my passport would be checked by my colleagues before boarding the aircraft.
The same happens with every airline that I have traveled on no passport no flight so I have always being amused how people wanting to claim asylum have no official documents on them,Saying that the GNIB over the last few years are busy with deportations whether it be using commercial flights or charter flights organised with other EU countries.

Why do countries still not impose a stiff fine on airlines for carrying such people who dispose of their passport. I know that Russia does.
The passport details if destroyed can be checked to find their true identity, route taken to come here and action taken.
An African can enter South Africa and get a South African passport for as little as 100 euro. This was the case but many black South African now object.

I think more arriving here like this South African asylum seeker the only result is a visa requirement for this nationality.
Do those who support asylum seekers not realise or care how this effects legitimate travelers !!

Freddie Dodge

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Fred is right if you were born in Ireland - but if you are an Irish citizen who wasn't born in Ireland, your child is not automatically an Irish citizen but is entitled to become one (i.e. it has to be applied for via foreign births registration).

A friend of mine (Irish) is engaged to a South African. Their child will be born here... automatically a citizen or will that child have to apply for citizenship? Does their marital status matter? How do we know the child is ACTUALLY the child of an irish national?

Alf. A. Male

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

A friend of mine (Irish) is engaged to a South African. Their child will be born here... automatically a citizen or will that child have to apply for citizenship? Does their marital status matter? How do we know the child is ACTUALLY the child of an irish national?

Nice. Say that to your friend. Let us know how you get on.

Pro Hoc Vice

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It's only outrageous if her case hadn't been heard. As almost all cases get heard within 12 months it's likely anyone there longer is appealing a rejection of their application.

Incorrect, a person could apply for Asylum be refused and appeal. But then a person could apply for Subsidiary Protection (unlike rest of Europe a applicant could not even apply in Ireland for SP until a rejected decision in Asylum) due to challenges to that system many people with valid claims for SP have been in limbo for a number of years. In one case an applicant said he did not have a valid Asylum claim and did not want to make such a claim but wanted only to apply for SP. The ECJ has decided that a person applying in Ireland should make bot applications at the same time not separated by years.

Freddie Dodge

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Nice. Say that to your friend. Let us know how you get on.

Cough.....Ahem..... "Well, your honour"

Donkey Oaty

Freddie Dodge wrote: »

A friend of mine (Irish) is engaged to a South African. Their child will be born here... automatically a citizen or will that child have to apply for citizenship? Does their marital status matter? How do we know the child is ACTUALLY the child of an irish national?

You could ask the same question even if they were married.

It's all down to the birth cert, as far as I know.

So: yes, if "here" means Ireland, they are automatically a citizen in this case.

rgossip30

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

How do you know they've exaggerated their circumstances?
South Africa may be a safe country in some respects, but it's far from safe for all its inhabitants.
Yes, if you are a white South African you can claim asylum.
As can Americans. You can claim asylum no matter where you are from, so long as you're outside your country of habitual residence. The success or failure of your claim will depend on the reasons you are outside that country and the existence of more appropriate options for you, such as dual nationality, among other criteria.
If you're goiong to bother starting a thread, make a little effort to educate yourself, this information is all freely available and will save you from stupid opening posts.

I suggest you look up INIS asylum policy !! Cannot post links see extract below.
So you are saying anyone living outside of Ireland can claim asylum.I know it is used as a means to stay here .Why do you need to refer to me as stupid ???

Under Section 12 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 This document is a pdf, the Minister may also designate certain countries as safe countries of origin. An asylum seeker who is a national or who has a right to reside in such a country or who has lodged a prior application in another state is presumed not to be a refugee unless he or she can show reasonable grounds to the contrary.
Croatia and South Africa have been designated as safe countries of origin.
Click here to return to main Asylum Policy web page.

rgossip30

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

How do you know they've exaggerated their circumstances?
South Africa may be a safe country in some respects, but it's far from safe for all its inhabitants.
Yes, if you are a white South African you can claim asylum.
As can Americans. You can claim asylum no matter where you are from, so long as you're outside your country of habitual residence. The success or failure of your claim will depend on the reasons you are outside that country and the existence of more appropriate options for you, such as dual nationality, among other criteria.
If you're goiong to bother starting a thread, make a little effort to educate yourself, this information is all freely available and will save you from stupid opening posts.

I suggest you look up INIS asylum policy !! Cannot post links see extract below.
So you are saying anyone living outside of Ireland can claim asylum.I know it is used as a means to stay here .

Under Section 12 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 This document is a pdf, the Minister may also designate certain countries as safe countries of origin. An asylum seeker who is a national or who has a right to reside in such a country or who has lodged a prior application in another state is presumed not to be a refugee unless he or she can show reasonable grounds to the contrary.
Croatia and South Africa have been designated as safe countries of origin.
Click here to return to main Asylum Policy web page.

The details of this case can be seen with reference to safe countries google Safe country of origin | European Database of Asylum Law
The point that South Africa is a safe country was taken into consideration in the refusal.


I suggest you make some effort instead of calling me stupid without evidence to back up your claim.