35 Nigerians deported on flight to Lagos

GuanYin

Darth Bobo wrote:

Erm so the kid lied on his application, heck he's doing his LC he could be 18 easily at that rate. So at 18 he should really have thought about it better, if you forged an application and were found out would you still expect it to be accepted? You can't start making acceptions left right n centre, it dilutes the law. Harsh yes, but also nessary.

O and to who ever said about we shouldn't deport people who have integrated into society, does that mean we should keep them all in asylum camps like in france?

Assuming you are right and he/she is 18 (although I'd guess 17 if the reports are referring to him/her as a minor), he/she has been in this country 2 years.

This means that at the time the offence was committed he/she was 15/16.

In this case your arguement over his/her ages is null and void, because he/she was a minor when the infringement took place.

Should people be held accountrable for lies they made when they were 15?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Should people be held accountrable for lies they made when they were 15?

That chick out of Girls Aloud should be in jail then .. lying 'ho!

Padraig Mor

psi wrote:

Assuming you are right and he/she is 18 (although I'd guess 17 if the reports are referring to him/her as a minor), he/she has been in this country 2 years.

If I remember correctly, the 'kid' is 19, therefore an adult. I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest.

D'Peoples Voice

mycroft wrote:

I cant help but ask, why Nigerians, they seem like a group of African scapegoats, aside from the proliferations of 481 scams, why are nigerians consistently singled out alongside Romanians as the group most likely to "abuse' our asylum laws.

On some Amercian websites, I came across some terms and conditions whcih stated that they will not sell to Nigerians credit card holders. Obviously the experience is similar in SOME places in the US.

D'Peoples Voice

Wicknight wrote:

What does that have to do with. We are a grossly under populated country (thank you very much Mr. Famine), but we still complain about taking on foreigners. :rolleyes:

I agree we should take in economic migrants, but refuse to take any refugees. We should remember that we are an ageing population, and therefore we will need more young SKILLED people to come in, and maintain a large workforce. What we don't need is refugees which will only cost us money.
This government should undertake an extensive recruitment programme of the skilled workforce in many of the developing countries to bring back skilled nurses, doctors, architects, accountants, in fact as many professions as possible. This may help to drive down wage inflation and in turn price inflation in our country.

simu

the_syco wrote:

Its sad really. I've yet to see one asylum seeker to take in our culture. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. They don't talk English. You want us to like you? Talk english. Looking at the Chinese, Pakistani's, African's (I sorry; I don't know the pural of more than African) who I've worked with; they have all learned English, and they agree to our laws.

"Talk English" is incorrect - you should say "speak English". Tut tut - maybe you should leave the country. :eek:

ionapaul

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

This government should undertake an extensive recruitment programme of the skilled workforce in many of the developing countries to bring back skilled nurses, doctors, architects, accountants, in fact as many professions as possible. This may help to drive down wage inflation and in turn price inflation in our country.

I've always said it, we need more Chinese and less skangers. Let's arrange some sort of swap. We may have to sweeten the deal with cold hard cash.

The Corinthian

billy the squid wrote:

where does it state in py posts that we accomodate them in five star hotels?

Where does it say that the State is obliged to double the cost of a deportation and burden the taxpayer because some bleeding heart felt that getting people up in the middle of the night for a free flight (ironically, not far from being Ryanair's business model) was unjustified?

If money is no object, why not a five-star hotel? Do you not see how preposterous such expense is in context?

Sleepy

ionapaul wrote:

I've always said it, we need more Chinese and less skangers. Let's arrange some sort of swap. We may have to sweeten the deal with cold hard cash.

And with the bonus of Chinese population control laws, eventually the skangers would extinct themselves!

Zombrex

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

What we don't need is refugees which will only cost us money.

We have never had a asylum seeker policy because we needed asylum seekers? Where the f**k are you getting that from It is like saying the coast guard should only rescue people who can afford to pay them, because the coast guard needs better funding.

We have an asylum policy because a)its international law and b) it is a very good international law considering at this exact moment 25 million people in Africa and the Middle East are in a state of deplacement and in danger of iniment death or torture. "People of concern" as the UN calls them.

Aslyum policy has never been about what we as a country need to sustain ecomonic growth. That is a rather disgusting proposition, we should only save people who can work for us.

D'Peoples Voice wrote:

This government should undertake an extensive recruitment programme of the skilled workforce in many of the developing countries to bring back skilled nurses, doctors, architects, accountants, in fact as many professions as possible. This may help to drive down wage inflation and in turn price inflation in our country.

Which has nothing to do with asylum seekers. People really need to get this through their head, an asylum seeker is not and illegal immigrant.

Sleepy

ionapaul wrote:

I've always said it, we need more Chinese and less skangers. Let's arrange some sort of swap. We may have to sweeten the deal with cold hard cash.

And with the bonus of Chinese population control laws, eventually the skangers would make themselves extinct!

Zombrex

the_syco wrote:

Its sad really. I've yet to see one asylum seeker to take in our culture.

How many asylum seekers do you actually know well enough to be able to make a statement like that? I've never seen someone from Mayo take a s**t but I am assuming they still do.

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

I've always said it, we need more Chinese and less skangers. Let's arrange some sort of swap. We may have to sweeten the deal with cold hard cash.

Ahem to that ... I was on the red line Luas on Wednesday and my mate was on the tram ahead of me. His train was stopped for 10 minutes because these scumbags from Fatima were drunk and starting fights with random punters on the tram. My tram was stuck behind them until them moved and as we went passed the Fatima station I saw a load of Asian looking Luas security and cleaning lads at the station, obviously there to sort it out.

Can we swap all the Dublin scum-bags for the hardworking polite Chinese please. I have never even hear of someone having trouble with someone from China (appart from the nuts case who killed his girlfriend) but a week doesn't go by that i am not hassled by some group of skangers in Dublin. I would gladly let the Asians take over large parts of the city. Even their Triad criminal gangs are polite FFS

Nietzschean

psi wrote:

Assuming you are right and he/she is 18 (although I'd guess 17 if the reports are referring to him/her as a minor), he/she has been in this country 2 years.

This means that at the time the offence was committed he/she was 15/16.

In this case your arguement over his/her ages is null and void, because he/she was a minor when the infringement took place.

Should people be held accountrable for lies they made when they were 15?

Now your trying to drag this into a whole different issue about the delay between application, rejection and deportation.

Realistically, if the child had a valid case for being here then the odd's are in a full interview with the neassary officals that would have come to light. Just because its a child doesn't mean we should let them stay.

Roisin Dubh

We have an asylum policy because a)its international law and b) it is a very good international law considering at this exact moment 25 million people in Africa and the Middle East are in a state of deplacement and in danger of iniment death or torture. "People of concern" as the UN calls them.

Aslyum policy has never been about what we as a country need to sustain ecomonic growth. That is a rather disgusting proposition, we should only save people who can work for us.

Correct asylum-policy should not be used to facilitate economic migration.

In my mind, if someone is claiming asylum in several EU countries and/or deliberately crossing into multiple EU states to claim asylum or with the intention of getting to say Ireland, then they are using the asylum-system for economic motives.

I find the arguments put here by someone that "oh well maybe they think Ireland is safer than other EU countries" fairly amusing considering the terror groups on this island.

GuanYin

Darth Bobo wrote:

Now your trying to drag this into a whole different issue about the delay between application, rejection and deportation.

Realistically, if the child had a valid case for being here then the odd's are in a full interview with the neassary officals that would have come to light. Just because its a child doesn't mean we should let them stay.

The difference between this incident and others is that not allowing him to complete the LC, denies him serious opportunities in his future.

Deported working adults may soon find work again.
The boy will have to restart an entire curriculum.

He obviously wanted to better himself and get an education, why couldn't they have waited 2-3 months?

GuanYin

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I find the arguments put here by someone that "oh well maybe they think Ireland is safer than other EU countries" fairly amusing considering the terror groups on this island.

Which terrorist groups target immigrants AG?

You and your mates up to something?

Roisin Dubh

psi wrote:

Which terrorist groups target immigrants AG?

You and your mates up to something?

I am not AG. Well there have been Loyalist terror attacks on immigrants in NI.

No I am not up to something!

Sand

I am not AG.

You're not fooling anyone. Not a single person. Stop trying. Its embarrassing to watch.

Correct asylum-policy should not be used to facilitate economic migration.

Agreed, but the logical follow on is that Ireland is not friendly to economic immigration, and rapidly needs to develop policy and institutions in the new reality that more people want to migrate into Ireland to work than out of it. Until that is done, people will continue to abuse the asylum policy.

bonkey

psi wrote:

He obviously wanted to better himself and get an education, why couldn't they have waited 2-3 months?

Perhaps the wisest and most humanitarian question asked in this discussion yet.

As to the ridiculous notion of "first country", there is a very simple reason that this is not enforced at an international level - that being that it would simply be untenable, as there would quite literally be a small minority of countries which would never be eligible to take any refugees, and some which would be forced to bear an unreasonable burden.

As for the EU having an internal policy, its equally untenable, for exactly the same reasons. Its interesting, though, that RD would support such a move, as it would involve handing over a considerable amount of control of our foreign policy to the EU, and should they then decide to change their minds on policy, I wonder if RD would not be amongst the first insisting that these foreigners in the EU have no right dictating our foreign policy.

I seem to recall that there was a proposal here in Switzerland (from Blocher, I think) to form a pan-European agreement, agreeing on fixed percentages for each country, which would be based on their ability to support the respective burden. I wonder would RD support such a move without knowing in advance whether it would result in an increase or lowering of the numbers we currently take on board.

jc

Roisin Dubh

Sand wrote:

Agreed, but the logical follow on is that Ireland is not friendly to economic immigration, and rapidly needs to develop policy and institutions in the new reality that more people want to migrate into Ireland to work than out of it. Until that is done, people will continue to abuse the asylum policy.

I understand from a recent Irish newspaper report only 6% of private-sector firms in the Republic of Ireland now have vacancies - the implication being that we don't need too many more economic migrants compared to previous years, when the figure was much higher (up to around 21% I think).

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/week_in_news/Full_Story/did-sg2hVw8qC3W06sgTbBP-2fa91M.asp

We have already let in plenty of economic migrants who chose the legal way of doing it thank you very much.

Bonkey wrote:

As to the ridiculous notion of "first country", there is a very simple reason that this is not enforced at an international level - that being that it would simply be untenable, as there would quite literally be a small minority of countries which would never be eligible to take any refugees, and some which would be forced to bear an unreasonable burden.

As for the EU having an internal policy, its equally untenable, for exactly the same reasons. Its interesting, though, that RD would support such a move, as it would involve handing over a considerable amount of control of our foreign policy to the EU, and should they then decide to change their minds on policy, I wonder if RD would not be amongst the first insisting that these foreigners in the EU have no right dictating our foreign policy.

I seem to recall that there was a proposal here in Switzerland (from Blocher, I think) to form a pan-European agreement, agreeing on fixed percentages for each country, which would be based on their ability to support the respective burden. I wonder would RD support such a move without knowing in advance whether it would result in an increase or lowering of the numbers we currently take on board.

I think that if we had a common EU policy that harmonised conditions for asylum-seekers, including a common approach to questions such as the right to work or lack of it, then it might deter some from coming here. I don't know if I would accept fixed %'s.

I don't agree that it would be a ridiculous burden on the Mediterranean countries. If anything it would wake them up and force them to make a bigger effort to stop the asylum-seekers getting into their countries in the first place!

The EU should give North African countries - especially Libya - an ultimatum to cooperate with moves to stop illegal immigrants getting into the EU from their national territories, or face sanctions.

Slutmonkey57b

I'm not saying you have no idea what you're talking about, but you clearly have no idea how long the coast of North Africa is. It's long. Really, Really, Really long. And there's no way you can patrol all of it.

bonkey

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I don't know if I would accept fixed %'s.

God forbid we shoulder a fair share of this form of humanitarian aid, eh? Not when it would mean 'squandering' our wealth on those from outside our borders, who clearly have no entitlement to it.

Come on - admit it. This is basically what you're saying. You want the illegitimate kicked out, or - even better - kept out by others (hey...it'll spare us the cost...bonus). The legitimate...well...you've been more than vocal in your belief that there should be a "country of first entry" rule on that...which would mean we wouldn't have any (beyond a trifling insignificance) legal asylum seekers either. All that be left then would be to convince the French and British navies to ensure nothing got up the coast to us (assuming you'd rather they pay rather than we expand our own navy..but that would be an acceptable option I'm guessing), et voila.

I don't agree that it would be a ridiculous burden on the Mediterranean countries.

And I'm guessing that by asking the Med nations to shoulder this burden, you'd also oppose the EU member states sharing in the funding of this? Why should we pay anything at all?

I can really see this one selling a treat when it comes to a vote.

"All those in favour of the Mediterranean nations getting shafted to no benefit by the rest of us, on account of them just being sh1t outta luck on the old geographical positioning meaning that they should shoulder this humanitarian burden for our entire Union....say Aye."

As an aside...I'm at a loss as to how they'll buffer us from those coming West. You know...those oppressed Chinese, Russians, Koreans etc. that you were only too keen to mention somewhere recently?

Remember them....the billions of Chen cases you were worried about? Or...let me guess....Eastern Europe which is collectively trying to build and modernise itself....they should take that one on. Tough npogies on the border-positioning there lads.

If anything it would wake them up and force them to make a bigger effort to stop the asylum-seekers getting into their countries in the first place!

I'm appalled that you forgot to include the word illegal there. I'd be more appalled if it was a deliberate omission....but I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that it isn't.

I'm actually baffled as to how they can prevent this from happening, though. How can you determine the status of an asylum seeker before they enter the country? I'm genuinely interested here...especially because if it would be poss for the Med. nations, then why isn't is poss. for Ireland as an island nation? Why don't we just stop them coming in here...if we can do it before they enter the country, then there's no issue with rights etc. that our laws give them, as they wouldn't be subject to them.

The EU should give North African countries - especially Libya - an ultimatum to cooperate with moves to stop illegal immigrants getting into the EU from their national territories, or face sanctions.

The irony of that, I'm positive, escapes you.

jc

Redleslie2

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I am not AG. Well there have been Loyalist terror attacks on immigrants in NI.

No I am not up to something!

Well are you dark_rosaleen from Stormfront then?

gandalf

Roisin Dubh has been banned for being a duplicate account.

shoegirl

billy the squid wrote:

why do they carry out these deportations in the middle of the night? is there a problem with getting a flight slot during the day or is it to prevent anyone getting in contact with their lawyers or what?

Its done in the middle of the night to prevent a media presence that might expose some of the uncomfortable truths present in the deportation of failed asylum seekers. By doing so in the middle of the night maintains the culture of secrecy and lack of factual information that makes it extremely difficult to fight against the tidal waves of ugly rascism that has hit Ireland over the last few years.

shoegirl

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I find the arguments put here by someone that "oh well maybe they think Ireland is safer than other EU countries" fairly amusing considering the terror groups on this island.

Actually we had a professor in college who was under a fatwa in Iran on account of having once been on the staff of the Shah. He had come here (he was actually a US citizen) on a genuine working VISA and is now naturalised but his main reason for choosing Ireland at that time (lates 1970s) was the very low level of Middle Easterners living here, which grossly reduced his likihood of being assisinated.

He had survived one previous assisination attempt in the UK before coming to Ireland. I have a very vivid memory of a visit by a European queen to Ireland around 1992 or 3 or so when the poor man turned white upon hearing a motor cycle engine in front square. He genuinely thought his time had come. It made me think a lot about what people who survive dreadful political regimes have to live with for the rest of their lives, and I suppose it is one of the reasons I am so pro-fiar asylum and fair-immigration policy and zero-tolerance for rascism today.

MrPudding

As much as I would like to think there are all sorts of neferious reasons for the deportations taking place at night, I reckon it is simply about the money. Charter flights are cheaper in the middle of the night. All the other reasons put forward are probably just welcome, for the authorities that is, side effects of saving a few bob.

MrP

pickarooney

Wicknight wrote:

Can we swap all the Dublin scum-bags for the hardworking polite Chinese please. I have never even hear of someone having trouble with someone from China (appart from the nuts case who killed his girlfriend) but a week doesn't go by that i am not hassled by some group of skangers in Dublin. I would gladly let the Asians take over large parts of the city. Even their Triad criminal gangs are polite FFS

Just because you're being "nice" doesn't stop this being racist drivel.

shoegirl

shoegirl wrote:

I am so pro-fiar asylum and fair-immigration policy and zero-tolerance for rascism today.

I agree with that.
I've never got this people are different thing.
As regards the time of the flight,I've no doubt its because its cheaper at that time of night.