Asylum Seeker protest on Kinsale Road. Mod warning in OP.

conorh91

Daisy Dasi wrote: »

Domestic abuse as in any other country in the world can be sorted with a DIVORCE or local police intervention.... no need to run to the other side of the world... the next city would suffice

That's not necessarily true. The determining bodies and the courts do come across situations, especially involving women, where internal relocation is unsuitable in circumstances of some form of domestic abuse. This is especially the case in very primitive, patriarchal societies, where the country of origin information on file would further indicate that the local police authorities are incompetent. It does happen.

"Abuse" is a ridiculously broad term. It can take in anything from FGM, to rape, to domestic violence, to emotional abuse.

Although most asylum stories are fabricated or not grounds for granting refugee status, we should stop short of any automatic presumption that claims of abuse are inherently without merit.

jank wrote: »

Anyway, the only way I can see this so, is that someone who buys a one way ticket to Ireland via an airport transit lounge in Europe can therefore claim asylum. Anyone else should be deported. Am I correct?

No.

reprise

conorh91 wrote: »

No.

Really?

How do you explain how there are so few applications for asylum made at Dublin airport? Last year, 85% of applicants made their application for asylum directly at the Office of Refugee Application Commissioner in Mount Street, Dublin.

jank raises an issue that is routinely swept under the carpet under the utter falsehood that Dublin regulations entitle people to claim asylum wherever they want and no-one dare even question, the mysterious arrival of tens of thousands of people from lands - half a world away without so much as a passport.

AlekSmart

reprise wrote: »

Really?

How do you explain how there are so few applications for asylum made at Dublin airport? Last year, 85% of applicants made their application for asylum directly at the Office of Refugee Application Commissioner in Mount Street, Dublin.

jank raises an issue that is routinely swept under the carpet under the utter falsehood that Dublin regulations entitle people to claim asylum wherever they want and no-one dare even question, the mysterious arrival of tens of thousands of people from lands - half a world away without so much as a passport.

I'm sure somebody will have a perfectly valid explanation quite soon.....;)

Undocumented is the way to go,and is recognised throughout the Western World as THE only way to circumvent troublesome rules and regulations.

jank

conorh91 wrote: »

No.

OK, care to elaborate?

jank

Don't all rush in to answer any of my questions.

To repeat according to the rules set out by the Dublin Regulation, if someone has already 'entered' (as in set foot outside the airport or port of arrival) a EU country and this is known by the authorities, they cannot claim asylum here and should be deported to said country of first entry. If this is not disputed, then I take it as a given.

Which begs the question, how many have arrived here by port via airport? And why so few lodging asylum at the airport? Again, this is just a curiosity.

alastair

jank wrote: »

Don't all rush in to answer any of my questions.

To repeat according to the rules set out by the Dublin Regulation, if someone has already 'entered' (as in set foot outside the airport or port of arrival) a EU country and this is known by the authorities, they cannot claim asylum here and should be deported to said country of first entry. If this is not disputed, then I take it as a given.

Which begs the question, how many have arrived here by port via airport? And why so few lodging asylum at the airport? Again, this is just a curiosity.

It's not remotely curious. There's no obligation on an asylum seeker to use Dublin airport for their application. Let's take a notional, entirely legitimate asylum claimant from, say, Iraq. They buy a through ticket to Ireland, via the transit area in CDG, and arrive in Dublin airport. They can opt to claim asylum there, or they can opt to claim asylum at ORAC, which is where they'll be sent by Immigration at the airport in any case. Nothing wrong or curious in making either choice.

Now, let's take the case of a claimant who has been smuggled in to the country, or has opted to not claim asylum in other states they've passed through - mix of legit and strategic reasons for not coming through / claiming asylum at the airport. They'll go straight to ORAC too. Some will have/produce no documentation for strategic reasons, and some may not have had any on entering the country. It's potentially a mix of economic migrants and entirely legitimate asylum applicants. Is the ratio 92% to 8%? Could be, or perhaps the appraisal system is too harsh or lax in it's judgements, but it's pretty much a red herring to suggest that applications direct to ORAC are bound to be suspicious, or curious.

jank

alastair wrote: »

It's not remotely curious. There's no obligation on an asylum seeker to use Dublin airport for their application. Let's take a notional, entirely legitimate asylum claimant from, say, Iraq. They buy a through ticket to Ireland, via the transit area in CDG, and arrive in Dublin airport. They can opt to claim asylum there, or they can opt to claim asylum at ORAC, which is where they'll be sent by Immigration at the airport in any case. Nothing wrong or curious in making either choice.

I have nothing wrong about that in theory but as anyone who has traveled via CDG will know your passport is checked three times by Security officials and airport staff. Is it possible for someone with no documentation or no visa to get through the boarding process? How many actually come via this way. Are there stats available?

alastair wrote: »

Now, let's take the case of a claimant who has been smuggled in to the country, or has opted to not claim asylum in other states they've passed through - mix of legit and strategic reasons for not coming through / claiming asylum at the airport. They'll go straight to ORAC too. Some will have/produce no documentation for strategic reasons, and some may not have had any on entering the country. It's potentially a mix of economic migrants and entirely legitimate asylum applicants. Is the ratio 92% to 8%? Could be, or perhaps the appraisal system is too harsh or lax in it's judgements, but it's pretty much a red herring to suggest that applications direct to ORAC are bound to be suspicious, or curious.

Well if 92% are bogus and 8% seem legit then given the laws of average you of course will have the view that most of these are scamers and/or economic migrants. Some groups are more likely to act like this than others mind. As the law stands if they are smuggled in and have traveled through other EU countries then they are to be deported to said country. I suppose this is why documentation of their travel is purposely destroyed and how they can usually offer no explanation to how they arrived in the country, as if they arrived via an airport at least immigration Gardai will know from the flight manifest that they went from X to Y via Z transiting.

Also, can you elaborate the bit on bold. What are the legitimate reasons to not claim asylum in the first safe EU country you arrive in (as required by law). What are the strategic reasons for not doing so? Do you admit there is asylum shopping going on?

alastair

jank wrote: »

I have nothing wrong about that in theory but as anyone who has traveled via CDG will know your passport is checked three times by Security officials and airport staff. Is it possible for someone with no documentation or no visa to get through the boarding process? How many actually come via this way. Are there stats available?

It's not possible to get through CDG without documentation afaik. But why introduce this new variable? You asked why so few asylum applications at Dublin airport - the answer is that applicants, even those with documentation, have entirely legitimate reasons for applying directly to ORAC, and not the airport.

jank wrote: »

Well if 92% are bogus and 8% seem legit then given the laws of average you of course will have the view that most of these are scamers and/or economic migrants.

A lot of applications are disguising economic migration attempts for sure.

jank wrote: »

Some groups are more likely to act like this than others mind. As the law stands if they are smuggled in and have traveled through other EU countries then they are to be deported to said country.

This happens - if there's sufficient evidence that thus is the case. Usually at the port of entry.

jank wrote: »

I suppose this is why documentation of their travel is purposely destroyed and how they can usually offer no explanation to how they arrived in the country, as if they arrived via an airport at least immigration Gardai will know from the flight manifest that they went from X to Y via Z transiting.

Sure.

jank wrote: »

Also, can you elaborate the bit on bold. What are the legitimate reasons to not claim asylum in the first safe EU country you arrive in (as required by law). What are the strategic reasons for not doing so? Do you admit there is asylum shopping going on?

Asylum shopping? Ireland would be a poor choice if that's the case. It rejects more applications than other states. If someone was smuggled in - say in a lorry container - they may well have passed through other EU states, but not had any opportunity to claim asylum there - hence a legitimate case for asylum application following arrival without papers, via other Dublin II convention states. It might well be uncommon or unlikely, but it requires the same degree of due process as any other application. The strategic reasons for not producing documents should be obvious - it maximises the chances of success for asylum claims that shouldn't otherwise have much hope of success.

jank

alastair wrote: »

It's not possible to get through CDG without documentation afaik. But why introduce this new variable? You asked why so few asylum applications at Dublin airport - the answer is that applicants, even those with documentation, have entirely legitimate reasons for applying directly to ORAC, and not the airport.

It is not a new variable, I asked it before. Therefore you acknowledge that it is very very hard, almost impossible to get into Ireland from outside the EU via another airport like CDG with no documentation or with no visa. Then why are there so many applicants with no documentation. What are the stats of people who present themselves at ORAC and comply by the law who transit only though an airport? Are there any statistics available?

alastair wrote: »

A lot of applications are disguising economic migration attempts for sure.

Agreed, vast vast majority. The appeals and deportation process is being abused by these people as well.

alastair wrote: »

This happens - if there's sufficient evidence that thus is the case. Usually at the port of entry.

As per above, how many people who are awaiting a decision have had no documentation or have been in another EU country already.

alastair wrote: »

Asylum shopping? Ireland would be a poor choice if that's the case. It rejects more applications than other states.

More than Switzerland?
http://nationalmirroronline.net/new/switzerland-rejects-2700-nigerian-asylum-seekers/

About 2,700 asylum seekers came into our country last year and almost none of them got asylum because they have not got enough reasons to become refugees in our country,” Sommaruga said

alastair wrote: »

If someone was smuggled in - say in a lorry container - they may well have passed through other EU states, but not had any opportunity to claim asylum there - hence a legitimate case for asylum application following arrival without papers, via other Dublin II convention states. It might well be uncommon or unlikely, but it requires the same degree of due process as any other application. The strategic reasons for not producing documents should be obvious - it maximises the chances of success for asylum claims that shouldn't otherwise have much hope of success.

As you say, this is uncommon. How many of the people currently awaiting processing arrived via this method? It is also illegal to enter a country this way never mind highly dangerous. As you say, it is also maximises the chance of asylum even though the vast majority of these people who are small in number would be economic migrants which is why there is a pull factor to dump your passport before entering Ireland.

Australia have had an issue with boat people as you may have heard. There was a built in incentive for human traffickers to collect money of people and smuggle them on a boat to Christmas Island. The new liberal government had put in place a law that stopped these boats in their tracks by turning back ALL boats. They have also implemented off shore processing centres.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/24956421/australia-hails-extraordinary-success-halting-boatpeople/

alastair

jank wrote: »

More than Switzerland?

Looks like it.

2013 figures - First instance decisions on (non-EU) asylum applications:

Switzerland
16,595 applicants
Positive decisions (refugee status, humanitarian reasons, subsidiary protection) - 6,390

Ireland
840 applicants
Positive decisions (refugee status, humanitarian reasons, subsidiary protection) - 150

alastair

jank wrote: »

It is not a new variable, I asked it before. Therefore you acknowledge that it is very very hard, almost impossible to get into Ireland from outside the EU via another airport like CDG with no documentation or with no visa. Then why are there so many applicants with no documentation. What are the stats of people who present themselves at ORAC and comply by the law who transit only though an airport? Are there any statistics available?

It's a variable to the example I presented. Illegally entering the country is not a precursor to automatic asylum rejection btw - you can successfully claim asylum having entered the country without a visa.

jank

alastair wrote: »

It's a variable to the example I presented. Illegally entering the country is not a precursor to automatic asylum rejection btw - you can successfully claim asylum having entered the country without a visa.

This I understand but if you enter from another EU country you have already been in, then by law you are to be sent back.

Been asking for and looking myself for statistics on the breakdowns on entry. Not much there.

alastair

jank wrote: »

This I understand but if you enter from another EU country you have already been in, then by law you are to be sent back.

Indeed - and as I said, this happens at port of entry all the time. Once someone is in the country however, and isn't prepared to admit they could have claimed asylum in a different state, and there's no proof of their failure to apply in that state, then it's difficult to send them back to that unknown state.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

Indeed - and as I said, this happens at port of entry all the time. Once someone is in the country however, and isn't prepared to admit they could have claimed asylum in a different state, and there's no proof of their failure to apply in that state, then it's difficult to send them back to that unknown state.

Thats true of course, but the downside for the asylum seeker is that their credibility is undermined thus rendering their applications unlikely to be sustained. Lies heaped upon lies does not a credible case make.

Hence, also, that low rate of acceptance you touched upon, as if it were something that should be homogeneous across all states, regardless of who makes the claims and in what proportion.

alastair

reprise wrote: »

Thats true of course, but the downside for the asylum seeker is that their credibility is undermined thus rendering their applications unlikely to be sustained. Lies heaped upon lies does not a credible case make.

No. They don't.

reprise wrote: »

Hence, also, that low rate of acceptance you touched upon, as if it were something that should be homogeneous across all states, regardless of who makes the claims and in what proportion.

I'm not sure why you think (or believe I think) there should be a homogenous success/failure rate in applications across all states? I posted up the comparison with Switzerland because it was suggested we might be a better option to Switzerland for 'asylum shoppers' - and if you buy into the concept of 'asylum shopping', I'm simply pointing out we might not be that attractive on that basis.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

No. They don't.


I'm not sure why you think (or believe I think) there should be a homogenous success/failure rate in applications across all states? I posted up the comparison with Switzerland because it was suggested we might be a better option to Switzerland for 'asylum shoppers' - and if you buy into the concept of 'asylum shopping', I'm simply pointing out we might not be that attractive on that basis.

Fair enough.

But I think the penultimate consideration for those who would ruthlessly abuse the asylum system is not acceptance rate. It's the probability of being removed and in what kind of timescale. There are other considerations too such as the ability to work illegally and of course the access to education, food, medical attention for ones entire family, etc etc on the taxpayers dime.

Last but far from least, the herds of fools queueing up to believe you. Listen to them long enough, you may well start to believe your own lies and start spitting at the hand that feeds.

alastair

reprise wrote: »

Fair enough.

But I think the penultimate consideration for those who would ruthlessly abuse the asylum system is not acceptance rate. It's the probability of being removed and in what kind of timescale. There are other considerations too such as the ability to work illegally and of course the access to education, food, medical attention for ones entire family, etc etc on the taxpayers dime.

Last but far from least, the herds of fools queueing up to believe you. Listen to them long enough, you may well start to believe your own lies and start spitting at the hand that feeds.

Against that you have to stack up the attraction of an asylum system that curbs any real possibility of work, compared to the simpler alternatives of straightforward black economy employment as an illegal migrant, or seeking asylum in another EU state that allows applicants to seek employment legally. Then there's the less-than-attractive social conditions of staying within the asylum process here, possibly contributing to the fact that the numbers of asylum applicants here are small compared to most other EU states.

conorh91

jank wrote: »

OK, care to elaborate?

jank wrote: »

Don't all rush in to answer any of my questions.

Why don't you do some basic investigations for yourself?

To the best of my knowledge, there are no asylum and immigration legal experts among us in this thread. Most of us are basing our knowledge on opinions on information which we have sought out by ourselves, including information on the various exceptions to the Dublin regulations in their evolving forms.

This includes, or has included, circumstances where the Applicant has transited through Greece, or where the Applicant has family residing in Ireland, or where the Applicant does not require an entry visa (e.g. a Bolivian national), or where the applicant has lived here for six months before making a claim, or where the Applicant is legally challenging the application of Dublin III to the facts of his case, and so on. There are many exceptions, which are easily discoverable to any person who makes an effort to find them.

So the answer to your question was "no" and the reasons are easily accessible. Application of the Dublin III (or its precursors) is not as automatic as people seem to believe.

By all means it's abused, by all means it falls short of what might be hoped for, but that's the legal situation. There are exceptions a-plenty.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

Against that you have to stack up the attraction of an asylum system that curbs any real possibility of work, compared to the simpler alternatives of straightforward black economy employment as an illegal migrant, or seeking asylum in another EU state that allows applicants to seek employment legally.

I have ten times more respect for any illegal immigrant working and not abusing the asylum system.

I have not researched the option of asylum applicants working in other countries, but I would imagine for it to work and be acceptable, applications would have to be dealt with in a timely manner and applicants would have to prove their applications are being made in good faith. Neither situation occurs here which is why it would be disastrous.

alastair wrote: »

Then there's the less-than-attractive social conditions of staying within the asylum process here, possibly contributing to the fact that the numbers of asylum applicants here are small compared to most other EU states.

I think that conflating the masses of economic tourists and opportunists with refugees makes this argument unreliable.

We exceed our obligations to bona fide refugees many times over and are extraordinarily generous in our provisions. Don't you agree?

alastair

reprise wrote: »

I think that conflating the masses of economic tourists and opportunists with refugees makes this argument unreliable.

Not really. I'm talking only about asylum applicants - regardless of whether they're subsequently approved or rejected - the numbers are pretty low in the European context.

reprise wrote: »

We exceed our obligations to bona fide refugees many times over and are extraordinarily generous in our provisions. Don't you agree?

Again - not really. We have a problem with curbing the post-asylum legal appeals process to a reasonable duration - that's our asylum problem. If that was sorted out, the quality of our provision to bona fide refugees doesn't look that great tbh. The only reason it sustains is because the waters are muddied by frustration with economic migrants taking advantage of asylum mechanisms we've failed to get in order, timewise.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

Not really. I'm talking only about asylum applicants - regardless of whether they're subsequently approved or rejected - the numbers are pretty low in the European context.

As they should be. We are an island country at the furthest periphery of Europe with virtually no ties to the countries these people are coming from. There is a fair argument for pro-rata distribution but thats not at hand.

alastair wrote: »

Again - not really. We have a problem with curbing the post-asylum legal appeals process to a reasonable duration - that's our asylum problem. If that was sorted out, the quality of our provision to bona fide refugees doesn't look that great tbh. The only reason it sustains is because the waters are muddied by frustration with economic migrants taking advantage of asylum mechanisms we've failed to get in order, timewise.

I am not sure what you mean. What is not attractive about the Irish system to a genuine refugee apart from the backlogs inflicted by bogus claims?

alastair

reprise wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean. What is not attractive about the Irish system to a genuine refugee apart from the backlogs inflicted by bogus claims?

The issues raised by the applicants currently in the direct provision system are pretty compelling tbh. I wouldn't want to have to live within those constraints and limitations, and I certainly wouldn't consider it an 'attractive' option.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

The issues raised by the applicants currently in the direct provision system are pretty compelling tbh. I wouldn't want to have to live within those constraints and limitations, and I certainly wouldn't consider it an 'attractive' option.

I am flabbergasted.

I think you would drop dead within five minutes of arriving in a typical country producing refugees.

Heres what real refugees deal with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LExcoR_2rE

I'd give you two minutes here.

alastair

reprise wrote: »

I am flabbergasted.

I think you would drop dead within five minutes of arriving in a typical country producing refugees.

Heres what real refugees deal with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LExcoR_2rE

I'd give you two minutes here.

Has the flabbergasted state knocked any common sense out of you? I don't think you get what the distinctions between the expectations of a failed third world country and an affluent western nation are, with regard to refugee supports.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

Has the flabbergasted state knocked any common sense out of you? I don't think you get what the distinctions between the expectations of a failed third world country and an affluent western nation are, with regard to refugee supports.

If my house burns down and I turn up penniless at the Hilton, I better get a damn fine room?

Whose expectations? the refugees? Is sanctuary, safety, food, shelter, medicine, money, allowances etc etc not enough?

I am stunned.

PS. Nodin. Why not join in. You will have that "thanks" button broken.

alastair

reprise wrote: »

If my house burns down and I turn up penniless at the Hilton, I better get a damn fine room?

Whose expectations? the refugees? Is sanctuary, safety, food, shelter, medicine, money, allowances etc etc not enough?

I am stunned.

PS. Nodin. Why not join in. You will have that "thanks" button broken.

You do realise that there's a pretty broad range of options between a tent in a war-torn failed state, and a snazzy suite in the Hilton?

reprise

alastair wrote: »

You do realise that there's a pretty broad range of options between a tent in a war-torn failed state, and a snazzy suite in the Hilton?

Yes, I think I even mentioned a few that are on offer in this country:

sanctuary, safety, food, shelter, medicine, money, allowances etc etc

When I think of real suffering in the world, it actually makes me a little ill that you think that this is not enough.

alastair

reprise wrote: »

When I think of real suffering in the world, it actually makes me a little ill that you think that this is not enough.

Most people's expectation would be that we can do a bit better than 'suffering' of any sort, when we're responsible for people's welfare.

reprise

alastair wrote: »

Most people's expectation would be that we can do a bit better than 'suffering' of any sort, when we're responsible for people's welfare.

You don't know the meaning of the word.

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

Has the flabbergasted state knocked any common sense out of you? I don't think you get what the distinctions between the expectations of a failed third world country and an affluent western nation are, with regard to refugee supports.

Well and good,but flabbergasting aside,those distinctions should not be required in this debate.

Our level of Refugee support is nothing to be ashamed of,and would be improved for sure,if it were possible to remove the numbers of overstayers whose refusal to accept their failed situation only lessens the chances of those genuinely in need of succor.

Whether simply being a citizen of a "Failed Third World Country" is satisfactory in itself to gain Asylum in Ireland,is as much part of the debate as anything else.

Whether our "affluence" is of the required level to allow us to embrace the Citizens of those Failed Third World Countries,in the numbers required by some posters,is equally debatable.

I'll suggest again,Ireland has nothing to be ashamed of,in it's history of offering a Safe-Harbour to refugees,but it has even less to be ashamed of if it sees-off the opportunists seeking to abuse it's hospitality.

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well and good,but flabbergasting aside,those distinctions should not be required in this debate.

It really shouldn't need saying that we ought to provide a more humane level of support to refugees than a war-torn failed state can.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Our level of Refugee support is nothing to be ashamed of.

Matter of debate. The government don't seem so comfortable that they're doing as good a job as they should. Some of the restrictions placed on those in direct provision are pretty shameful imo.

AlekSmart wrote: »

and would be improved for sure,if it were possible to remove the numbers of overstayers whose refusal to accept their failed situation only lessens the chances of those genuinely in need of succor.

How exactly is the number of over-stayers lessening the chance of those genuinely entitled to refugee status? They're certainly extending the processing of applicants, but "lessening their chances"?

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whether simply being a citizen of a "Failed Third World Country" is satisfactory in itself to gain Asylum in Ireland,is as much part of the debate as anything else.

Who claimed that?

AlekSmart wrote: »

Whether our "affluence" is of the required level to allow us to embrace the Citizens of those Failed Third World Countries,in the numbers required by some posters,is equally debatable.

I don't think there's much debate that we can afford to do better than Sudan can, tbh.

jank

One can always do 'more' but given the level of resources at hand and the number of over-stayers and the cycle of appeals clogging the system I do not think Ireland is doing too bad.

In another thread I mentioned that Dublin city council is considering using prefabs as a method to house homeless people on a temporary basis. Around 32% of people in direct provision are housed in this fashion yet it is deemed 'inhumane'. Why? If this is OK for homeless people, then surely its OK for people who come from third world countries. I asked previously for details on conditions in these places but none was forthcoming, just generalities.

The 'we can do more' is just a method to endlessly argue a point. Ireland could direct 15% of its taxbase to this problems, yet why not direct 16%, we can do more sure...

So the question should but what is deemed appropriate and how much will it cost?

reprise

alastair wrote: »

It really shouldn't need saying that we ought to provide a more humane level of support to refugees than a war-torn failed State can.

Huh? Which war torn state are you comparing hotels and Mosney to?

reprise

jank wrote: »

One can always do 'more' but given the level of resources at hand and the number of over-stayers and the cycle of appeals clogging the system I do not think Ireland is doing too bad.

In another thread I mentioned that Dublin city council is considering using prefabs as a method to house homeless people on a temporary basis. Around 32% of people in direct provision are housed in this fashion yet it is deemed 'inhumane'. Why? If this is OK for homeless people, then surely its OK for people who come from third world countries. I asked previously for details on conditions in these places but none was forthcoming, just generalities.

The 'we can do more' is just a method to endlessly argue a point. Ireland could direct 15% of its taxbase to this problems, yet why not direct 16%, we can do more sure...

So the question should but what is deemed appropriate and how much will it cost?

I think Alastair has made that perfectly clear. They should enjoy a comfort level in excess of anything provided a lifelong citizen. And then a little bit more for their pain.

walshb

Ian has it spot on:

"What is the great lure of Ireland for asylum seekers who arrive on our shores? The same question could be asked of plenty of documented immigrants who have come here from far-away countries, of course. But the difference is that they have gone through the proper channels and proved, in theory at least, that they have a skill and can support themselves. That benefits both the new arrival and their new home; regulated immigration provides an infusion of new blood for any country and, when it works, everyone's a winner."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/its-time-we-closed-the-door-on-our-failed-asylum-policy-30592113.html

alastair

reprise wrote: »

Huh? Which war torn state are you comparing hotels and Mosney to?

Sorry - you've used up your troll credit.

alastair

walshb wrote: »

Ian has it spot on:

Except for repeating the same old canard of 'direct flights' and casually assuming that all asylum applicants are attempting to bypass immigration controls. Sure he has. And his formula for success? We refuse to live up to our obligations under international law. Sounds like a winner! But then - this is Ian O'Doherty, so why expect more than 'controversial' guff?

AlekSmart

jank wrote: »

One can always do 'more' but given the level of resources at hand and the number of over-stayers and the cycle of appeals clogging the system I do not think Ireland is doing too bad.........

..........The 'we can do more' is just a method to endlessly argue a point. Ireland could direct 15% of its taxbase to this problems, yet why not direct 16%, we can do more sure...

So the question should but what is deemed appropriate and how much will it cost?

It is indeed a valid question,but through all of the too'ing and fro'ing of the discussion we rarely see or hear any concerns raised about the cost of relaxing our requirements to allow for greater immigration.

The accepted wisdom appears to indicate that our newly unrestriced Immigrant Stream will comprise of "Highly Qualified Professionals" and other grades all keen to get on the Employment/Business ladder in Ireland.

Perhaps,It would indeed be worth the risk in order to prove/disprove the theory that this would be a zero-cost move,with the new arrivals all helping to perform the tasks which our native population are less than keen to perform....Butchers,Bakers,Candlestick Makers.....and perhaps Binmen ?

Financing stuff,particularly stuff relating to running a State largely comes back down to the basics of Insurance.....

"The Premiums of the Many paying for the claims of the Few"

However,once you have passed a certain point in this equation,the system fails...no if's,but's or maybe's...it collapses.

Quite what effect the relaxing of our long-standing rules would have as our newly legalized "Families" began to reassemble and seek the protections of our Education,Health and Welfare systems,is a moot point,particularly in the light of the precarious balance between contributor vs recipient numbers as it is...?

My own small contact with the DP clients from the Mosney facility appears to indicate a general acceptance amongst them that things could be worse....a LOT worse...but then maybe they haven't been visited by the concerned radicals yet ?

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is indeed a valid question,but through all of the too'ing and fro'ing of the discussion we rarely see or hear any concerns raised about the cost of relaxing our requirements to allow for greater immigration.

The accepted wisdom appears to indicate that our newly unrestriced Immigrant Stream will ...

Amazing how quickly a discussion about sorting out problems with the asylum system transforms into 'relaxed/unrestricted immigration'. It's as if you're passing over the actual issue at hand in favour of countering an argument you just made up yourself! Surely not?

AlekSmart wrote: »

My own small contact with the DP clients from the Mosney facility appears to indicate a general acceptance amongst them that things could be worse....a LOT worse...but then maybe they haven't been visited by the concerned radicals yet ?

Sure they could be dead, or as The Stranglers would have it:

Well what a bummer
I can think of a lot worse places to be
Like down in the streets
Or down in the sewer
Or even on the end of a skewer

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

Except for repeating the same old canard of 'direct flights' and casually assuming that all asylum applicants are attempting to bypass immigration controls. Sure he has. And his formula for success? We refuse to live up to our obligations under international law. Sounds like a winner! But then - this is Ian O'Doherty, so why expect more than 'controversial' guff?

I'm not an I O'D fan.

However just because he writes it does'nt render the opinion null and void as a discusion topic.

One could equally pose the question as to why so many asylum and refugee applications are found to be baseless,or why these baseless one's end up on our books for so long.

To be honest,the "controversial" tag has long ago dropped off this topic,it's debated up and down the country with most people,I suspect,making up their own minds and walking on.....

To suggest that Ireland is deliberately refusing to honour it's obligations under International Law is,to me,utter nonsense.

I'm quite certain that this "International Community",many of which are equally struggling to balance the Debts of Empire with modern notions of responsibility,are quite recognisant of reality.

We have a functional and provenly effective Asylum System,perfectly suited to our size and situation.....It has only "failed" due to our native inability to Manage stuff that works,whilst pouring resources into stuff that is off-the-wall.

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not an I O'D fan.

However just because he writes it does'nt render the opinion null and void as a discusion topic.

Nope - but the factual misrepresentations and comedy 'suggested solution' do.

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

To suggest that Ireland is deliberately refusing to honour it's obligations under International Law is,to me,utter nonsense.

That's the nonsense that Ian O'Doherty proposes.

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

Amazing how quickly a discussion about sorting out problems with the asylum system transforms into 'relaxed/unrestricted immigration'. It's as if you're passing over the actual issue at hand in favour of countering an argument you just made up yourself! Surely not?

Surely not indeed.

However,the discussion at large does tend to broaden in this manner,from both perspectives.

Once can rarely discuss the current Asylum vacuum,without quickly being advised of the fact that our DP Centres contain large numbers of people who just want to Work...to provide for themselves...to have their own place etc etc.

All very valid issues,but ones which,dei facto,move the goalposts from Asylum to Leave to remain...Compassionate/Ministerial Leave.....Immigration,call it what you will.

Left to it's own devices our Asylum System has the capibility to work very well indeed,but the failure to manage it effectively dating back to the early 2000's,has now left us in a quandary.

It's a functional system,so lets knock it down and build it up again,to see if it can meet the strident demands ?

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

That's the nonsense that Ian O'Doherty proposes.

I'm not sure I'm on the correct page but is this the nonsensical bit ?

But unless we make it clear that we respect our borders and the only way to enter this country is the legal way - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/its-time-we-closed-the-door-on-our-failed-asylum-policy-30592113.html#sthash.HO8DKO9i.dpuf

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

Surely not indeed.

However,the discussion at large does tend to broaden in this manner,from both perspectives.

Nice try, but no thanks. Apples and Oranges.

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not sure I'm on the correct page but is this the nonsensical bit ?

Nonsense:

The simple reality is that 'asylum' is a myth that has been propagated by vested interests

Inevitably, the lobbyists, quangos and special interest groups will squawk that we have to abide by international laws and treaties. But you don't see France or Australia worrying about their international 'obligations' when those obligations run contrary to the best interests of their own people.Which, lest we forget, is the ultimate job of any government.

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

Nice try, but no thanks. Apples and Oranges.

I'm not sure I understand your point ?

Are you suggesting that there is NO linkage,in the public mind,between the Asylum and Refugee processes and the broader issue of Immigration as a whole (Legal or Illegal) ?

alastair

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your point ?

They're separate and distinct issues. And you're dishonestly attempting to conflate them.

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

Nonsense:

Quote:
The simple reality is that 'asylum' is a myth that has been propagated by vested interests

I'd not agree with that as a general statement,however if the word "modern" was inserted befoe "Asylum" I night be persuaded to give it a "Like".
Irelands Asylum process has been a proven success since the inception of this Republic,with many hundreds of individuals and families remaining as testimony to that fact.

Inevitably, the lobbyists, quangos and special interest groups will squawk that we have to abide by international laws and treaties. But you don't see France or Australia worrying about their international 'obligations' when those obligations run contrary to the best interests of their own people.Which, lest we forget, is the ultimate job of any government.

You can argue Nonsense here for sure,however both Countries mentioned do have a track record of being VERY willing to alter their approach to "International Conventions" across a broad range of topics when it is considered to be in their National Interest.

AlekSmart

alastair wrote: »

They're separate and distinct issues. And you're dishonestly attempting to conflate them.

Seperate and Distinct,and nowhere do I suggest otherwise.

However,most people viewing the broader issue,are quite capable of making their own decisions on whether Asylum,Refuge,and Immigration have to remain divided forever by a Chinese Wall of sorts.

I would be quite comfortable with this broad view,which is not anywhere near suggesting that the three elements are Inextricably Linked,or conflated as you suggest.

People,in the outside world,tend to call it as they see it,without necessarily delving into the nicities of description,however they do tend to know what they are trying to say.

Therefore,you may well be labelling a VERY significant number of people as "Dishonest " here,which might not be your intention ?