Visa amnesty for immigrants

GuanYin

F Fiesta wrote:

As Twain once said :

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Of all the really sad and pathetic posts in politics, that has to be THE saddest and most pathetic.

So basically what you're saying. You guys can all come in and make up stuf all you like and anyone who comes in with the facts and figures to who you up is basically using lies.

Thats rich. Go on, off you go. Back under your bridge to terrorise billygoats

F Fiesta

Skye


How do you know who I was referring to in the arguement? How do you know that it's not aimed at both arguements?


Nice work.

GuanYin

F Fiesta wrote:

Skye


How do you know who I was referring to in the arguement? How do you know that it's not aimed at both arguements?


Nice work.

Well I think you laid your cards down on the thread and if you really feel hard done by, then clarify it and don't post useless childish posts.

F Fiesta

It's has more relevance than a post like this :

"Oh come on, sure Sky have at least one Irish presenter and McDonalds always has the green Shamrock shake around Paddy's day!"

GuanYin

F Fiesta wrote:

It's has more relevance than a post like this :

"Oh come on, sure Sky have at least one Irish presenter and McDonalds always has the green Shamrock shake around Paddy's day!"

Now you're just being petty. It was an obvious joke.

Now, you have posted several posts that are either ill advised or ill-informed.

You made a complaint that I did wrong by you. So either clarify your point and stop posting like a child or just go away.

Poker_Peter

Wicknight wrote:

You think it is better that they sit around doing nothing for a year or 2 while their application is processed, eating up tax money and not able to contribute anything to society?

I think that economic migrants should apply for work-permits or the future Green Cards.

I think that people fleeing war, famine or persecution should apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter.

GuanYin

Poker_Peter wrote:

I think that economic migrants should apply for work-permits or the future Green Cards.

I think that people fleeing war, famine or persecution should apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter.

Wow it took you to re-invent yourself to finally distinguish between immigrants and asylum seekers!

pickarooney

Wicknight wrote:

Not if they have to live here .. that philosphy only works if they work here for a bit, save money and then leave to go home to spend their savings. And if they do that then what is the problem again??

Wouldn't the problem in this case be all the money leaving the country instead of going back into the economy?

I wonder how exactly one would go about saving money in Ireland though.

Zombrex

Poker_Peter wrote:

I think that people fleeing war, famine or persecution should apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter.

So you think you should decide for a person fleeing for their life, who has probably had friends or family raped and killed, when they should be allowed to feel safe?

Personally I don't care if an Nigerian fleeing for his life feels more safe in Spain or Ireland, or if in between the images of his wife and children being shot infront of him he thinks "um, I hear you have a better chance in Ireland than in Italy".

The idea of the asylum program is to help those that need help. Not to help those that need help and who have also jumped through a load of legal hoops so you are statisfied that they really really dont want be tortured and killed.

We have an assessment program that afaik works fine. Why start mass deportations based on point of origin that is only going to deport those who would be deported anyway and those that actually need help

Zombrex

pickarooney wrote:

Wouldn't the problem in this case be all the money leaving the country instead of going back into the economy?

Well I think you will be a while convincing people, immigrants and natives, that they have an obligation to only spend their salaries in Ireland. Have you heard of CDWow.ie

Dhimmi76

wicknight wrote:

The idea of the asylum program is to help those that need help. Not to help those that need help and who have also jumped through a load of legal hoops so you are statisfied that they really really dont want be tortured and killed.

We have an assessment program that afaik works fine. Why start mass deportations based on point of origin that is only going to deport those who would be deported anyway and those that actually need help

It is indeed unfortuate that those genuinely seeking asylum are forced to jump through 'legal hoops' as you put it, but perhaps you should point the finger of blame for this at who is primarily responsible i.e. those who systematically abuse the system which, afterall, was put in place for purely humanitarian reasons.

Asylum abuse is a major security, law and order and public health threat etc and creates an array of domestic problems for the Countries targetted by it.
(it is also a major problem for genuine refugees)

It is an open door for the worse types to enter unvetted and act as they please in the host Country, in many cases aided and abetted by the 'anti-racist' useful idiots who stand up for their 'rights' in the face of well-founded native concern.

It is a fine example why immigration policy must be draw up with the Country's and its people's self-interest as its core and perhaps even sole concern. 'Humanitarianism' and 'immigration' combined is a recipe for serious problems as modern European history continues to show.

Zombrex

Dhimmi76 wrote:

It is indeed unfortuate that those genuinely seeking asylum are forced to jump through 'legal hoops' as you put it, but perhaps you should point the finger of blame for this at who is primarily responsible i.e. those who systematically abuse the system which, afterall, was put in place for purely humanitarian reasons.

I am not pointing the finger of blame at anyone. What does blaming do? I am saying we cannot turn genuine asylum-seekers away because we feel they are not worthy or genuine enough to recieve help even before they are individually assessed.

Dhimmi76 wrote:

Asylum abuse is a major security, law and order and public health threat etc and creates an array of domestic problems for the Countries targetted by it.
(it is also a major problem for genuine refugees)

So does tourism

As has been pointed out a million times before, Al Queda and most of the international terrorist that everyone is panicking about, opperate using tourist visas or legal work permits.

Very very few have ever used the asylum route to gain entry into countries. So before we put heavy restrictions on asylum seekers, surely we should ban tourism, or at least ban all muslim tourism, because that is the way the vast majority of terrorists move around ... don't think that is going to happen anytime soon :rolleyes:

Dhimmi76 wrote:

It is an open door for the worse types to enter unvetted and act as they please in the host Country, in many cases aided and abetted by the 'anti-racist' useful idiots who stand up for their 'rights' in the face of well-founded native concern.

Native concern about what? Muslims? Blacks? You talk about "worse types" as if we should know before hand who is a criminal/terrorist and who isnt. The point is we dont. As I mentioned above, tourism lets in the "worse types" far more than asylum seekers. Most of the 9-11 terrorist were on tourist visas.

Dhimmi76 wrote:

It is a fine example why immigration policy must be draw up with the Country's and its people's self-interest as its core and perhaps even sole concern. 'Humanitarianism' and 'immigration' combined is a recipe for serious problems as modern European history continues to show.

Such as ..... ? I am not sure of any problems that asylum seekers have caused in Ireland at all. Apart from "causing racism", arcades old chestnut :rolleyes:

Poker_Peter

So you think you should decide for a person fleeing for their life, who has probably had friends or family raped and killed, when they should be allowed to feel safe?

Personally I don't care if an Nigerian fleeing for his life feels more safe in Spain or Ireland, or if in between the images of his wife and children being shot infront of him he thinks "um, I hear you have a better chance in Ireland than in Italy".

The idea of the asylum program is to help those that need help. Not to help those that need help and who have also jumped through a load of legal hoops so you are statisfied that they really really dont want be tortured and killed.

My sole concern on ths asylum issue is that those genuinely fleeing unsafe circumstances in their home countries should BE safe. If they land in Italy or Spain, they ARE safe, whether they feel it or not. They do not need to travel on to other countries for safety reasons. Or are you saying that Spain is a dreadfully dangerous country?

Zombrex

Poker_Peter wrote:

My sole concern on ths asylum issue is that those genuinely fleeing unsafe circumstances in their home countries should BE safe. If they land in Italy or Spain, they ARE safe, whether they feel it or not. They do not need to travel on to other countries for safety reasons. Or are you saying that Spain is a dreadfully dangerous country?

No I am saying you have no right to decide for someone where they should feel safe. They are not breaking any law by coming to Ireland, and you cannot claim to understand the motivation or needs of someone fleeing for their life. If they want to come to Ireland, why not let them?

Plus I am sure it is going to piss Spain and the other border countries off no end if all us up north say hold on, you guys have to take every asylum seeker, they ain't are problem.

F Fiesta

Apart from "causing racism", arcades old chestnut

Err, but it does cause it?

bonkey

F Fiesta wrote:

Err, but it does cause it?

No, it causes racism to manifest itself.


jc

Poker_Peter

Wicknight wrote:

No I am saying you have no right to decide for someone where they should feel safe. They are not breaking any law by coming to Ireland, and you cannot claim to understand the motivation or needs of someone fleeing for their life. If they want to come to Ireland, why not let them?

Because Ireland has enough problems as it is without importing the problem of having to fork out to some extent to provide for the needs of economically inactive persons (as asylum-seekers are not allowed to work).

I think I understand well why someone claiming to be a refugee in Spain, would then head to France, UK, and Ireland. They must think our system is more generous. Regardless, there is no need for them to travel thousands of miles (or km as it now is) from a safe EU country to get to another safe EU country. And it is the last thing our hospitals need right now.

Plus I am sure it is going to piss Spain and the other border countries off no end if all us up north say hold on, you guys have to take every asylum seeker, they ain't are problem.

I doubt that, given the open arms they have given to 1 million (or thereabouts) illegal immigrants with the partial amnesty by the Left wing government.

F Fiesta

bonkey wrote:

No, it causes racism to manifest itself.


jc

I disagree.

ArthurDent

F Fiesta wrote:

I disagree.

Oh ok - you've convinced me.

I suppose immigrants cause rascism in the same way as women cause sexism, gays cause homophobia and old people cause ageism.....

ArthurDent

Poker_Peter wrote:

Because Ireland has enough problems as it is without importing the problem of having to fork out to some extent to provide for the needs of economically inactive persons (as asylum-seekers are not allowed to work).

I think some people here have already said that they too disagree with this and would like to allow asylum seekers work.

Also - do you really think that people truly want to live long-term in places like mosney?And have a grand total of €19 a week (sorry approximation - will go look for the link) to spend.

Here's that link - actual amount €19.10
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/asaccommodationc.doc

F Fiesta

gays cause homophobia

Naturally

oscarBravo

F Fiesta wrote:

Naturally

Jaysus...

Poker_Peter

ArthurDent wrote:

I think some people here have already said that they too disagree with this and would like to allow asylum seekers work.

Also - do you really think that people truly want to live long-term in places like mosney?And have a grand total of €19 a week (sorry approximation - will go look for the link) to spend.

Here's that link - actual amount €19.10
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/asaccommodationc.doc

Considering that Spain is letting them work, does this and what have said above not show that maybe they would be better off staying put there?

BTW, what about the costs of the acommodation in places like Mosney to the taxpayer?

Allowing asylum-seekers to work is unfair to those who went through the proper legal channels to get work here. It effectively would allow people to skip the queue for job vacancies in this country by claiming to be a refugee. It would make the work-permit system pointless if we just said, "claim rightly or wrongly to be a refugee, and regardless of whether you are or not, presto you can get a job". That would give an economic incentive for someone to claim to be a refugee and hence I am dead against it.

Asd far as I am concerned, the definition of a refugee is someone seeking refugee from something. If you are in Spain or Italy, you have found your refuge, and don't need to come to Ireland to get it, because you already have it.

The decline in asylum-numbers since the Citizenship referendum seems to confirm the link between "incentives/disincentives" and claiming asylum. These numbers would likely go up again if we introduce the system you seem to want, whereby claiming asylum would be rewarded with the right to work in Ireland. It would create an economic incentive to claim asylum.

bonkey

Poker_Peter wrote:

Considering that Spain is letting them work, does this and what have said above not show that maybe they would be better off staying put there?

If that is the entire basis of their decision-process, yes it would.

Allowing asylum-seekers to work is unfair to those who went through the proper legal channels to get work here.

Allowing asylum-seekers to work would mean they could be self-sufficient rather than a drain on the economy - something I'm sure you'll use as a reason asylum seekers are bad if you haven't done so already.

And it is only unfair if you assume that they are not genuine asylum-seekers. While this is true of some, the simple fact remains that the underlying issue is, therefore, the inability of our system to process asylum claims in a timely manner, and the subsequent failure to remove failed applicants once their claim has been processed and rejected.

Asd far as I am concerned, the definition of a refugee is someone seeking refugee from something. If you are in Spain or Italy, you have found your refuge, and don't need to come to Ireland to get it, because you already have it.

Fair enough. The law, both nationally and internationally (in the form of international agreements) disagrees with you. I'm pretty sure if you were Spanish or Italian, you'd also hold a different opinion. Most likely you'd be outraged that your fellow EU neighbours expected you to bear the brunt of a humanitarian burden because - bluntly put - they didn't want to.

But I can see your reasoning.

We shouldn't allow them to work, nor should we allow them too many benefits, so if they have to come in, they should be given as little as possible.
Better yet, we shouldn't let them in at all...its only costing us money, so we should let others carry the burden.

Why don't you carry it to its logical conclusion and just admit that humanitarian aid is a game for mugs, and we shouldn't bother with it ourselves because it costs us money and there are always going to be others who should bear this cost and burden by dint of their "fortunate" geographical location.

Or is there some reason why the notion of asylum stands out as a special case amongst the humanitarian acts that we as a nation partake in which merits its being cut back in front of the others?

The decline in asylum-numbers since the Citizenship
referendum seems to confirm the link between "incentives/disincentives" and claiming asylum.

Only if you choose to ignore the difference between correlation and causality, or can supply additional data to strengthen the argument.

For example, the numbers have been falling since before the referendum. In fact, they've been fallng since the "dot-bomb" and the subsequent hammering of the global economy. Why not chose that chronologically-more-accurate event as the trigger, rather than the referendum which came some months after significant drops in the figures had been recorded?

What other factors may there have been, and why can they also be disgarded? Has any research been done?

The events may indeed "SEEM" to be connected, but the use of such logic as a basis for decision-making has led to many a witch-hunt throughout history.

whereby claiming asylum would be rewarded with the right to work in Ireland.

You forgot to say "until such times as your asylum claim was processed" there.

jc

deprogrammer

bonkey wrote:

If that is the entire basis of their decision-process, yes it would.


Allowing asylum-seekers to work would mean they could be self-sufficient rather than a drain on the economy - something I'm sure you'll use as a reason asylum seekers are bad if you haven't done so already.

And it is only unfair if you assume that they are not genuine asylum-seekers. While this is true of some, the simple fact remains that the underlying issue is, therefore, the inability of our system to process asylum claims in a timely manner, and the subsequent failure to remove failed applicants once their claim has been processed and rejected.



Fair enough. The law, both nationally and internationally (in the form of international agreements) disagrees with you. I'm pretty sure if you were Spanish or Italian, you'd also hold a different opinion. Most likely you'd be outraged that your fellow EU neighbours expected you to bear the brunt of a humanitarian burden because - bluntly put - they didn't want to.

But I can see your reasoning.

We shouldn't allow them to work, nor should we allow them too many benefits, so if they have to come in, they should be given as little as possible.
Better yet, we shouldn't let them in at all...its only costing us money, so we should let others carry the burden.

Why don't you carry it to its logical conclusion and just admit that humanitarian aid is a game for mugs, and we shouldn't bother with it ourselves because it costs us money and there are always going to be others who should bear this cost and burden by dint of their "fortunate" geographical location.

Or is there some reason why the notion of asylum stands out as a special case amongst the humanitarian acts that we as a nation partake in which merits its being cut back in front of the others?


Only if you choose to ignore the difference between correlation and causality, or can supply additional data to strengthen the argument.

For example, the numbers have been falling since before the referendum. In fact, they've been fallng since the "dot-bomb" and the subsequent hammering of the global economy. Why not chose that chronologically-more-accurate event as the trigger, rather than the referendum which came some months after significant drops in the figures had been recorded?

What other factors may there have been, and why can they also be disgarded? Has any research been done?

The events may indeed "SEEM" to be connected, but the use of such logic as a basis for decision-making has led to many a witch-hunt throughout history.


You forgot to say "until such times as your asylum claim was processed" there.

jc

"Asylum seekers" in Ireland get too much already.
Anyone who believes that all they get is a 19 quid is a serious gull.

They get 19 yo-yos a wk in Monsey which is a reception centre and nothing else
actually there they get all their essential special needs seen to. including a regular, frequent free bus into Drogheda, and all 'child care' needs.

After they'reprocessed, which may take 7-8 weeks on average they are then housed by health boards- this is when the real goodies flow.

The 19 a wk myth is a deliberate deception as the people of this country are being treated, it seems, as lab rats in a social engineering experiment.


A half truth is an untruth and the untruth was and is favoured tactic by the soviet system- new and old!


Know the truth not the Pravda!

Poker_Peter

Fair enough. The law, both nationally and internationally (in the form of international agreements) disagrees with you. I'm pretty sure if you were Spanish or Italian, you'd also hold a different opinion. Most likely you'd be outraged that your fellow EU neighbours expected you to bear the brunt of a humanitarian burden because - bluntly put - they didn't want to.

What do you think the term "refugee" means if not "someone seeking refuge from something?

Are you saying that someone not fleeing war, famine or persecution should potentially still be seen as a refugee?

Can I be a refugee please!

Rev Hellfire

I personally believe that the rewarding of visa's to asylum seekers is wrong, if people wish to work in the country, and there is a rather large requirement for foreign workers they should follow the correct procedures for doing so. Now there may be a case for a review of the system of awarding work visa's here.

This visa system will only serve those who are actively breaking the law, they should be punished not rewarded. Once asylum has been granted they (and as it should be) are free to work and contribute to their new homeland. I would assume that main priority of a true asylum-seeker would have would be ensuring both their own and their families safety, getting a job should not be concern since their immediate needs will be met by the state. I would also say since very few asylum-seeker's arrive in this country direct from a trouble spot, with out passing through the continental mainland, we can assume that these people are in fact economic refugee’s and as such entitled to nothing; cruel, unfair (possibly) but true. One of the advantages (if you view asylum seekers in a negative light) of been the western isle is that very few true asylum seekers can reach here with out been somewhere were they should have claimed asylum first.

Getting your bling quota up is not a concern for a true asylum-seeker.

MrPudding

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I personally believe that the rewarding of visa's to asylum seekers is wrong, if people wish to work in the country, and there is a rather large requirement for foreign workers they should follow the correct procedures for doing so. Now there may be a case for a review of the system of awarding work visa's here.

QUOTE]

Can I point you to the title of the thread? No one is talking about giving greencards to asylum seekers.

MrP

Hobbes

deprogrammer wrote:

"Asylum seekers" in Ireland get too much already.
Anyone who believes that all they get is a 19 quid is a serious gull.

They get what amounts to a free place to stay and 19 euros a week in pocket money. If you somehow think this means they are rolling in it you are delusional.

Child care is free in Ireland anyway (up to a point).

After they'reprocessed, which may take 7-8 weeks on average they are then housed by health boards- this is when the real goodies flow.

Please list out those "goodies". Quote a source as well please. Seeing as you know the truth.

pete

deprogrammer wrote:

"Asylum seekers" in Ireland get too much already.
Anyone who believes that all they get is a 19 quid is a serious gull.

Information and Services for People Seeking Asylum in Ireland in Direct Provision.

So which of these do you have a problem with? Specifically.