give refugees and assylum seekers a break!!!

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
For every child born to "asylum seekers" (read "economic migrant defrauding the state for the most part), there is at least one other person, so for every baby born, the figure is in reality 10,000.

Huh? Each child born equates to 10,000 people? How do you make that out? Or were you trying to say that 5,000 people on paper is actually 10,000 in reality? Why?

As pointed out - the child, and no-one else, has the right to citizenship. If the state has not been enforcing this, thats a different problem, but the simple fact is that the government at present have the right to offer the child its citizenship, allow it to stay in teh country, and deport the parents. The parents then have a choice. They can choose not to be seperated from their child, and take it with them, or they can choose that they want their child to have the benefits it is entitled to. In no case is the state denying the child anything.

The fact that this hard line has not been taken is perhaps more telling than any of the dubious figures which anti-immigrant / anti-refugee side generally produce.

What many of these people are then doing is bringing their families over too, so that figure mulitiples again

Except that those people have no right to enter the country or gain any benefits from the state...unless they enter as refugees, in which case having family in the country is of absolutely no significance.

I have heard from a reliable source (senior civil servant - unnamed for obvious reaons) that some 94% of all applications are refused since they do not fall within the lines of the UN convention on refugees.

That speaks volumes.

Yes, it does. If we have 1,000 refugees coming in a year, it means that in excess 15,000 were turned away. If the figure is 10,000 allowed in, over 150,000 were turned away. It shows that we're not exactly an easy nation to get in to....which counteracts one of the two core "anti-refugee" arguments.

I would hardly class a 1 in 16 chance of getting into a nation (when presenting yourself as a refugee) as "a soft touch". In fact, it would mean that youd have to be pretty desperate.

I'm curious - do people actually think through the significance of these figures, or just use them for shock tactics?

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey


Huh? Each child born equates to 10,000 people? How do you make that out? Or were you trying to say that 5,000 people on paper is actually 10,000 in reality? Why?

As pointed out - the child, and no-one else, has the right to citizenship. If the state has not been enforcing this, thats a different problem,

Up until that case was ruled on, they were bringing over whole families after them. T'was a rather well known tactic which proved very effective too, until the aforementioned ruling was made.

So, up until that point, for every child born, there was at least one other person seeking entry. (obviously at least the mother).

Whether or not you choose to accept that the above WAS happening, that's your problem.

Yes, it does. If we have 1,000 refugees coming in a year, it means that in excess 15,000 were turned away. If the figure is 10,000 allowed in, over 150,000 were turned away. It shows that we're not exactly an easy nation to get in to....which counteracts one of the two core "anti-refugee" arguments.

Well ... if you read the last part of what I said you'll find an answer to your own statement.

...refused since they do not fall within the lines of the UN convention on refugees.

The problem is not people claiming for asylum I think, its the fact that we have so many people claiming for it when everybody knows that they're not genuine, yet everyone else ends up footing the bill. And since many are here for several years whilst their cases are heard, that expense is considerable indeed.

Blade

Originally posted by bonkey

Yes, it does. If we have 1,000 refugees coming in a year, it means that in excess 15,000 were turned away. If the figure is 10,000 allowed in, over 150,000 were turned away. It shows that we're not exactly an easy nation to get in to....which counteracts one of the two core "anti-refugee" arguments.

And what happens to your 150,000 who were turned away? They all go home quietly with their tails between their legs and pay for their own air fairs back? First of all VERY few deportation orders like I said before actually get carried out, most of these people go missing and try to get work in places where theres no questions asked or else get someone pregnant so they can stay, or like in the case of a few asylum seekers I know personally they latch onto single girls who have children already from their own country and say that they are their husbands using false marriage certificates. So don't try to tell us that 'we're not exactly an easy nation to get in to'

Originally posted by bonkey

I would hardly class a 1 in 16 chance of getting into a nation (when presenting yourself as a refugee) as "a soft touch". In fact, it would mean that youd have to be pretty desperate.

Exactly it may be a 1 in 16 chance of getting in when presenting yourself as a refugee but thats only a stepping stone to their real goal. Who the hell would want to be here as a refugee getting 20 Euros a week and housed in ****ty caravans with other people you don't know and constantly being moved about and not be allowed to work? Of course you would have to be pretty desperate to settle for this, thats the whole point, most don't.

BTW: I don't get my figures only from news papers, I personally know loads of asylum seekers who tell me all their scams and on the other side I know a group of immigration officers who are constantly chasing people around the country and who have to personally escort the very few the catch back to their own countries by plane.

Anyway I'm pro refugee and pro immigration but I'm just letting you know that it IS easy to get into this country because of the way the system is as the moment and I believe all the loopholes should be fixed to stop the scammers and proper immigration policies should be put in place where genuine people can come over here and work for a living.

We have enough welfare fraud here as it is with Irish people and theres nothing that pi$$es me off more when I'm trying to run a business and am getting hammered by increased costs such as wage rises, 100% insurance hikes, 300% waste collection charges and soon ESB hikes and to have to fork out probably the highest taxes in Europe to pay some chancer who brings his wife over 8 months pregnant 900 Euro a month for them to have their baby here.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
Up until that case was ruled on, they were bringing over whole families after them. T'was a rather well known tactic which proved very effective too, until the aforementioned ruling was made.

So, up until that point, for every child born, there was at least one other person seeking entry. (obviously at least the mother).

Whether or not you choose to accept that the above WAS happening, that's your problem.

I never denied what was heppening. What I pointed out is that the problem was not one of legislation (which did not need to be changed) but rather one of a willingness to tackle the issue in the first place.

People keep screaming that "the rules need to be changed". A better start would be the current rules be enforced.

The problem is not people claiming for asylum I think, its the fact that we have so many people claiming for it when everybody knows that they're not genuine, yet everyone else ends up footing the bill. And since many are here for several years whilst their cases are heard, that expense is considerable indeed.

If we are rejecting 94% of last years asylum seekers, then I fail to see how people can be waiting here for several years before being adjudicated on.

Originally posted by Blade
And what happens to your 150,000 who were turned away? They all go home quietly with their tails between their legs and pay for their own air fairs back? First of all VERY few deportation orders like I said before actually get carried out, most of these people go missing and try to get work in places where theres no questions asked or else

The major complaint is the cost of government support for those who are let in. Illegal immigrants (refugees who were adjudged not to be refugees) get no support from the state, or at least should not get any support from the state. Therefore they are not a drain on the economy in that sense. If they are working as illegal immigrants, then all we can do is suffer the fact that companies are willing to hire illegal workers, and remember the vast numbers of illegal Irish immigrants who are in the States before complaining about it too loudly.

Who the hell would want to be here as a refugee getting 20 Euros a week and housed in ****ty caravans with other people you don't know and constantly being moved about and not be allowed to work? Of course you would have to be pretty desperate to settle for this, thats the whole point, most don't.

Funny - the line which has been the most vociferous (if thats possible in a written forum!) here has been that we are giving them too much and they are only here to leech off the easy free handouts the state is giving them. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that theyre not being given this, and are actively engaged in illegal activities to supplement their income (because there's no such thing as a legal scam), thats a different issue - they should be deported or imprisoned immediately for their actions.

As a matter of interest, would you consider reporting these criminals who admit to this type of activity?

jc

Blade

Originally posted by bonkey

The major complaint is the cost of government support for those who are let in. Illegal immigrants (refugees who were adjudged not to be refugees) get no support from the state, or at least should not get any support from the state. Therefore they are not a drain on the economy in that sense. If they are working as illegal immigrants, then all we can do is suffer the fact that companies are willing to hire illegal workers, and remember the vast numbers of illegal Irish immigrants who are in the States before complaining about it too loudly.

I've no problem with anyone working for a living even if they are illegally here. Cause I believe theres still a serious labour shortage and I don't buy this 'their takin our job's and our women' cr@p. My whole last argument was just to explain that it is in fact easy to get into this country. This whole asylum system is a drain on the economy though and considering 90+% of the people are bogus refugees then thats one hell of a waste of Tax payers money. Still though it has to be done but there are areas where Ireland can change a few rules to keep up with modern times, we were never ready for such an influx of asylum seekers cause no one ever wanted to come here till our economy started booming so we were never prepared.

Originally posted by bonkey

Funny - the line which has been the most vociferous (if thats possible in a written forum!) here has been that we are giving them too much and they are only here to leech off the easy free handouts the state is giving them. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that theyre not being given this, and are actively engaged in illegal activities to supplement their income (because there's no such thing as a legal scam), thats a different issue - they should be deported or imprisoned immediately for their actions.

Well when I said scam I was talking about the lies, false documentations etc used to try and get asylum here but now that you mention it there is also a lot of other criminal activities that people get involved in when they're here living on 20 Euro a week. All the more reason why asylum seekers should be allowed work here while their cases are being heard I think.

Originally posted by bonkey

As a matter of interest, would you consider reporting these criminals who admit to this type of activity?

I wouldn't grass anyone up, no.

Sorry I misunderstood your last quote to me, not editing the whole post now! What I was saying was that most of these asylum seekers don't want to remain refugees because the refugees are entitled to very little (20 Euro a week and cr@p accomodation) So what I was saying was that their hope is to move away from refugee status and get work instead. I didn't mean that they'd move on and get into crime.

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey

If we are rejecting 94% of last years asylum seekers, then I fail to see how people can be waiting here for several years before being adjudicated on.

AFAIK that 94% is not the applicants for last year .. that's applications processed TO DATE. Last year's will probably not be ruled on until sometime in the next 2/3 years given the current logistics.

The major complaint is the cost of government support for those who are let in. Illegal immigrants (refugees who were adjudged not to be refugees) get no support from the state, or at least should not get any support from the state. Therefore they are not a drain on the economy in that sense.

BUT they ARE being supported by the state. It takes several years for their applications to be processed and ruled upon. Until they are deemed not to be refugees .. they are completely supported by the state. There are people who have been here over 4/5 years still pending their applications.

If they are working as illegal immigrants, then all we can do is suffer the fact that companies are willing to hire illegal workers, and remember the vast numbers of illegal Irish immigrants who are in the States before complaining about it too loudly.

That's another issue altogether. Illegal immigrants working on the sly get no support whatsoever, and if caught will be deported very swiftly. Still doesn't make it right under ANY circumstances.

There's a BIG difference between that and attempting to defraud a state so that you can get set up in a new and better life.

cujimmy

I think we all need to read the irish times from 27/7 and all of next week as there seems to be some fairly balanced coverage of these issues

dathi1

Not if Fintan OToole is covering them..

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by cujimmy
I think we all need to read the irish times from 27/7 and all of next week as there seems to be some fairly balanced coverage of these issues

They'll be putting forward the anti-immigration side as well will they?

Turnip

Ireland is full. It's not PC but it's a fact. And the sonner the likes of fntan o'toole and the all the other left wing posherati realise that the better.

vorbis

oh Shut up Turnip. By what standard is Ireland full? We've got probably the least dense level of population in Europe. Do you know 6 million Dutch live in a country the size of Munster? THATS full.

cujimmy

Ireland is full.

This year's census would seem to suggest that large parts of Ireland are being depopulated

dathi1

yeah Turnip...wev lots of space to fill in...now wheres da money for houses..oh i know!! allow them to work and everything will be hunky dory.

mike65

I don't know you leave a thread alone for days, weeks even. You come back and its still full of it!

Ireland has the lowest population density in western Europe but some of the densest people in Europe if this thread is any measure.

Mike.