If nobody wants asylum seekers

KnowItAll

Hobbes wrote:

Compare it to say South Korea similar size to Ireland and has a population of 48 million. Also makes Ireland look like an overpriced third world country.

Dunno about you but I like a little bit of space..

Hobbes

KnowItAll wrote:

Dunno about you but I like a little bit of space..

You obviously haven't been to South Korea.

Seoul would be like New York, and certainly a few cities around it have similar populations to Ireland however there are large areas quite open and countryside. On-Yang for example looks a lot like Clare (only without the tourists, and less houses).

Hobbes

KnowItAll wrote:

A friend of mine works in social welfare and has to give out checks to asylum seekers. He told me that the Nigerians in particular are a real pain. They complain that they are not getting enough and they usually go for luxury items like expensive buggies. The cheap buggies (they cost hundreds btw) are not good enough.

They get 19.10 euros a week and are not allowed take up paid work. Are you saying this is too much to give them? Are you saying that they shouldn't be complaining because it is too much money? Could you live on 19.10 euros a week?

You have some proof to back up that expensive buggies line. Last time I looked a buggy is around 100+ euros. You have children? If so you should know.

shoegirl

frootfancy wrote:

How simple can immigration be?

Zimbabwe. Hostile, run by a despotic little troll hell bent on killing anyone who doesn't say his anus produces gold. natural reaction to asylum seekers? Deport them.

Iraq- A free, new independant nation who needs its population to rebuild the peaceful, democratic future promised by the West. keep their asylum seekers here with no power to send them back.

We've gotten so bogged down in figures and opinion we've lost sight of what asylum stood for. Zimbabweans have a genuine need to come to the UK (Heath Streak and Andy Flower being the most high profile) Mugabe is torturing, killing, bulldozing and wearing cream trousers with dark blazers. Iraqis now have a free country in which to revel their lives. We've begun deporting Kosovans so why are we still accepting Iraqis?

I could narrow the application process to one question;

Are you in danger where you come from?

Yes / No

If the answer's No, then its big silver bird time.

Very succinct post which does get to the point of the problem.

But there is one more problem - which is that under the terms of the 1951 convention, even a person fleeing a country because of a war may not strictly qualify for refugee status. In most countries in Europe "leave to remain" is the normal response, however Ireland has done something much more insidious. We've more or less ignored the leave to remain requirement and instead granted a much higher than normal number asylum - which gives the illusion that Ireland is fulfilling its obligations and being "generous" when in fact Ireland is only fulfilling its UN directed obligations.

As a result the actual number of asylum seekers actually getting full rights to stay is one of the smallest in Europe. Curiously enough, the US has one of the best records in terms of admissions - and good naturalisation processes.

What I don't understand is why there is still 1000 plus people a month coming to Ireland when their changes of a succesful application is only 6%.
The nastiest thing of all is that public opinion is being manipulated when the 10-30% who normally would get "leave to remain" on humanitarian grounds are turned down they are then automatically branded "bogus" asylum seekers.

The reality is that you can have a very genuine case for seeking refugee status that will not 100% fit the terms of 1951 and get turned down, even though you may be in danger for your life back home.

Classic example is the cases of threatened female genital mutilation in remote Nigeria. Technically these do not fulfill the terms of the 1951 covention and so Ireland is technically correct in rejecting asylum claims. However in a civillised society that respects the humanitarian rights of women and children, they would be granted leave to remain.

But in Ireland they are not - and then deported back to Nigeria to face these dangers.

The fact that they are not is sadly indicative of an Irish society's contempt for the applicants on the grounds of ethnicity, gender and powerlessness. It is a terrible reflection of the society that Ireland has become. In numerous abortion referenda Ireland has tried to show the world how modern and "compassionate" she has become, but in the asylum system she has revealed her true contempt for women and their children, born and unborn.

pete

KnowItAll wrote:

A friend of mine works in social welfare and has to give out checks to asylum seekers.

Really? Because asylum seekers can't claim social welfare, and afaik DSCFA haven't "given out checks" (sic) since payments were transferred to An Post a number of years ago, and prior to that social welfare payments were made in cash.

Could it be your friend is a community welfare officer? If so, maybe you could ask him / her how much of his cheque writing is discretionary and how much is simply what people are entitled to, regardless of their perceived attitude?

bonkey

frootfancy wrote:

How simple can immigration be?

We've gotten so bogged down in figures and opinion we've lost sight of what asylum stood for.

Looks to me like we've gotten so bogged down in being scared of the large numbers of foreigners out there that we've lost sight of the fact that immigrants and asylum seekers have little other than their non-Irishness in common.

Whether it was a slip of the tongue/fingers or not, if you can't make your argument regarding one without accidentally confusing them with the other, it has to be said that you are more likely to be part of the problem rather than of the solution.

jc

Zombrex

KnowItAll wrote:

Couldn't agree more.

A friend of mine works in social welfare and has to give out checks to asylum seekers. He told me that the Nigerians in particular are a real pain. They complain that they are not getting enough and they usually go for luxury items like expensive buggies. The cheap buggies (they cost hundreds btw) are not good enough.

It makes you wonder. They come here seeking asylum but still want everything going and are only satisfied with luxury items.

Bangs .. head ... against ... wall ....

Asylum seekers entering this country get nothing except their rent and food (food they are given, they can't buy their own)... nothing ... not cars, not buggies, not hair cuts, not "entertainment" money, nothing ... they get put in hostels (they don't get county council houses)

Your friend is either very miss informed or lying.

frootfancy

Asylum/ immigration matters in England are lumped together and dealt with as one. Its under one department so tends to be mentioned in the same breath.

"Asylum seekers entering this country get nothing except their rent and food (food they are given, they can't buy their own)... nothing ... not cars, not buggies, not hair cuts, not "entertainment" money, nothing ... they get put in hostels (they don't get county council houses"

Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things...

therecklessone

frootfancy wrote:

Asylum/ immigration matters in England are lumped together and dealt with as one. Its under one department so tends to be mentioned in the same breath.

You obviously missed the .ie in the site address then...

frootfancy wrote:

Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things...

Explain by hook or by crook.

Zombrex

frootfancy wrote:

Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things...

And you know this how...?

frootfancy

By illegal methods. Theft, deception etc etc.

I know these things because dealing with immigrants/ asylum seekers is now very much an every day part of my job

therecklessone

frootfancy wrote:

I know these things because dealing with immigrants/ asylum seekers is now very much an every day part of my job

In England, yes? Cos we've already pointed out the fact that asylum seeker and immigrant aren't always the same thing.

frootfancy

Yes and so?

bonkey

frootfancy wrote:

Asylum/ immigration matters in England are lumped together and dealt with as one. Its under one department so tends to be mentioned in the same breath.

Hang on a sec....

Are you saying that you're not talking about asylum and immigration in Ireland then, but rather the situation in England?

Or are you just talking about Ireland but using terminology that doesn't apply to the situation in Ireland?

The latter would strike me as being either deliberately disingenuous or merely self-defeating.

If you want people to take your arguments seriously, the first thing you need to show is that they are credble. Referring to immigrants and asylum seekers in this mish-mash-lets-not-bother-distinguishing manner, whilst discussing the situation in Ireland where there most certainly is and should be a distinction is simply not credible.

But don't let me stop you. Credible arguments are more difficult to dismiss.

jc

therecklessone

frootfancy wrote:

Yes and so?

Because your posting on an Irish board, discussing asylum issues in an Irish context, confusing the terms immigration and asylum seeker (regardless of whether the Daily Mail approach is to interchange the terms or not) and posting of your experiences in the UK without specifying the context of such experiences, hence giving the impression that you are discussing the situation in this country.

You know what about asylum issues in the Republic?

frootfancy

I'm talking about immigration here. I was unaware i HAD to live in Ireland to post here. I'm pretty certain that as Irish citizens you go through the same processes and concerns as we do in England. Or is it custom to worry about your own little world whilst not considering what happens just across the water? The fact next to my user name it say i'm in England perhaps might be a clue to the fact i'm talking about the situation here.

I'm offering my opinions as a serving police officer in England and my experiences with asylum seekers and immigrants.

As for differentiation between the two, looking up the terms immigrant and aslyum seeker brings back the same definition. Whatever the terminology i'm talking about, at least here, it means exactly the same.

pete

frootfancy wrote:

I'm offering my opinions as a serving police officer in England and my experiences with asylum seekers and immigrants.

As for differentiation between the two, looking up the terms immigrant and aslyum seeker brings back the same definition. Whatever the terminology i'm talking about, at least here, it means exactly the same.

Good grief.

Possibly 3 of the most depressing sentences i've ever read here.

frootfancy

cheers buddy :eek:

Hobbes

frootfancy wrote:

Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things...

I hear magical pixies come from behind the curtains and under the beds and leave the stuff for them when they wake up.. Any bets who can find evidence to prove their point first?

Hobbes

As for differentiation between the two, looking up the terms immigrant and aslyum seeker brings back the same definition. Whatever the terminology i'm talking about, at least here, it means exactly the same.

I have to ask, where are you looking the definations up?

immigrant, Asylum Seeker.

They are not even remotely the same. They are also not used in the same context here except by certain people trying to point out they should all leave the country.

I'm offering my opinions as a serving police officer in England and my experiences with asylum seekers and immigrants.

I find that very hard to believe.

frootfancy

Hang on a minute.

Why do you people ask me to justify what i say? I notice almost every other post doesn't have anything in the way of independant proof.


All i can offer is my first hand experience. If that isn't good enough then so be it.

Zombrex

frootfancy wrote:

I'm talking about immigration here.

Immigration and asylum seekers are too seperate issues, with wildly differing factors.

For example, do you have objection to the tens of thousands of American citizens who work in Ireland and England for American owned multi-national corporations. Are they all screwing the system?

Or do you object to the 50,000 English people currently working and living in Ireland?

Hobbes

frootfancy wrote:

Why do you people ask me to justify what i say? I notice almost every other post doesn't have anything in the way of independant proof.

Its part of the Board policy. If you claim something as fact you are supposed to back that up with some kind of proof.

You are welcome to question anyone elses post and ask them to back it up with facts. But this Asylum seeker xenophobic type posts is old hat here, which is why a lot of people don't question what people are saying.

Btw, try to stay on topic. The post refers to Ireland. Saying its like England is about as relevent as saying that the immigration/asylum seeker laws of some other country are the same as Ireland.

bonkey

frootfancy wrote:

I'm talking about immigration here.

I'm confused. Is "here" England, or Ireland in this context?

I'm pretty certain that as Irish citizens you go through the same processes and concerns as we do in England.

And Irish citizens are pointing out that you are incorrect in this assumption.

We do not consider the two groups the same, legally, in terms of who deals with them, nor in terms of how we bandy the terms about.

We do not give them the same benefits that they receive in England.

...and so on.

You can be sure about the same people having the concerns all you like, but to be quite hoenst, you seem to be basing this on the "well, we have these problems, and you're dealnig with foreigners too, so you must have them" line of reasoning.

As a police-man, I'm sure you're aware of how far you'd get if you ever dragged someone before a court and said "well, m'lud, we have problems with immigrants, and this man is also foreign, so he must be guilty".

You're offering little more than the same argument here, and expect us to believe that it holds water?

I was unaware i HAD to live in Ireland to post here.

Clearly you don't. You are posting here, and you don't live in Ireland.

Or is it custom to worry about your own little world whilst not considering what happens just across the water?

And the UK joined the Euro when, exactly? Putting one's own nation first is hardly something unique to the Irish. Furthermore, you're again making the "well it happened here, so its reasonable to assume its happenign there" logic again, and not even presenting it that way.

I'm offering my opinions as a serving police officer in England and my experiences with asylum seekers and immigrants.

It warms me to the cockles of my heart to see a serving police officer refer to an entire section of the populace (i.e. immigrants and asylum-seekers) with such balanced, open, innocent-until-proven-guilty comments as "Maybe they don't get these things from the state, but by hook or by crook they do get these things..."

As for differentiation between the two, looking up the terms immigrant and aslyum seeker brings back the same definition.

Looking up the terms where, exactly?

Are you telling me - as a police officer - that English law makes no distinction between what an immigrant is and what an asylum seeker / refugee is? Seriously?

jc

Macmorris

Hobbes wrote:

Its part of the Board policy. If you claim something as fact you are supposed to back that up with some kind of proof.

I don't think he was claiming anything as fact. He was expressing an opinion. I notice that it seems to be just the unenlightened side of the immigration debate that are expected to back up every claim they make. Not that there is anything wrong with providing evidence for what you say, I just would like to see the same policy applied to some of the claims made on the other side as well.

For example:

Wicknight wrote:

Asylum seekers entering this country get nothing except their rent and food (food they are given, they can't buy their own)... nothing ... not cars, not buggies, not hair cuts, not "entertainment" money, nothing ... they get put in hostels (they don't get county council houses)

Where is the evidence to back this up? Is there some government website where we can find the statistics on government spending on asylum seekers? He's probably right, I would just like to make sure that there is evidence to support his claims. As we are supposed to have freedom of information in this country, it shouldn't be too difficult to clear up any confusion we might have on how the government is spending our money on asylum seekers.

Hobbes

Macmorris wrote:

. Not that there is anything wrong with providing evidence for what you say, I just would like to see the same policy applied to some of the claims made on the other side as well.

Actually they are. As I said this thread is a very old subject so proof has been done to death on earlier threads, along with statistics/costs per year/totals per years.

Where is the evidence to back this up? Is there some government website where we can find the statistics on government spending on asylum seekers?

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets.html

It lists in detail what a refugee gets, as well as an asylum seeker (both are different under the law). We can ignore immigrants from that equation as they are covered under different rules (can't just come here to *spongue*).

To answer your evidence to back it up..
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html

Under the ‘direct provision’ system, introduced in April 2000, asylum seekers are housed in shared, hostel-type accommodation centres across the country. Residents of direct provision centres are provided with food and lodging and a guaranteed cash payment of €19.10 per adult or €9.60 per child per week. In Ireland, asylum seekers are not allowed by the state to take up paid work – Ireland and Denmark, uniquely, have opted out of this year's EU-wide 'Reception Directive' which includes proposals granting (limited) access to employment to asylum seekers in the asylum process – and are denied access to third level education, regardless of their performance in the Leaving Cert. or their length of time in Ireland.

pete

Macmorris wrote:

Where is the evidence to back this up? Is there some government website where we can find the statistics on government spending on asylum seekers? He's probably right, I would just like to make sure that there is evidence to support his claims.

i wonder how many times i've posted this link here?

http://www.oasis.gov.ie/moving_country/seeking_asylum/direct_provision.html

As we are supposed to have freedom of information in this country, it shouldn't be too difficult to clear up any confusion we might have on how the government is spending our money on asylum seekers.

We have, so off you go and lodge an FOI request. Each department has at least one FOI officer who'll be more than happy to help you even draft your request.

frootfancy

Well i'm sorry if i've confused the two terms.


Allow me to go on.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4039071.stm

Algerian cheque fraud. I'm unaware as to a reason why people would need to claim asylum from Algeria.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_832000/832128.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3248011.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3040388.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4642795.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3637726.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3157214.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3129089.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_705000/705600.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_705000/705600.stm


Well that's just what i pulled up on one site. Asylum seeker fraud is rife in the UK. So by hook or by crook they are getting the luxuries in life.

Oh and thanks, in your rush to gain the moral highground that i infered this about all asylum seekers.

rsynnott

frootfancy wrote:

Well that's just what i pulled up on one site. Asylum seeker fraud is rife in the UK. So by hook or by crook they are getting the luxuries in life.
.

Of course, no English or Irish person has EVER taken advantage of the system. Yes, there are some dishonest people from other countries. This is not used and should not be used as an anti-immigration justification.

Macmorris

Hobbes wrote:

To answer your evidence to back it up..
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html

The Irish Refugee Council is hardly an objective source of information. They're a liberal, pro-immigration, pro-asylum organisation with an agenda that includes 'dealing with people's fears over immigration', as you can see from reading the articles on their home page.

I was hoping that there would a government website where we could see where are our taxes are being spent, not just on asylum but on everything. I can't see why that information isn't readily available online. I'm sure it is, I just haven't been able to find it so far.

Residents of direct provision centres are provided with food and lodging and a guaranteed cash payment of €19.10 per adult or €9.60 per child per week.

So in that case Wicknight was wrong when he said that asylum seekers receive nothing except food and rent. The evidence, therefore, doesn't back up his claim.

"Asylum seekers entering this country get nothing except their rent and food (food they are given, they can't buy their own)... nothing ... not cars, not buggies, not hair cuts, not "entertainment" money, nothing"

A guaranteed cash payment? Would that be another way of saying a minimum cash payment? Whatever it is, it is in addition to the money spent on necessities, so I think that would count as disposable income, income which could be used for "entertainment".

I haven't been able to find any evidence either that they don't get free cars, buggies, or hair cuts. They get 'assistance' for clothes and other 'exceptional' needs. I wonder what those 'exceptional' needs are exactly?