To deport or not deport, is that the question?

Éomer of Rohan

Here is a newspaper article in keeping with the recent trend...

British racists offer support to Irish anti-immigration party

Asylum myths and reality - Observer special

Nicola Byrne, Dublin
Sunday January 13, 2002
The Observer

Ireland's Immigration Control Platform party has received messages of support from the far right British National Party.

The party is also facing prosecution under the Incitement to Hatred Act after distributing leaflets in Dublin last week which called for a halt to 'the invasion and colonisation of Ireland' by immigrants.

The Immigration Control Platform (ICP) was formed in January 1998 to lobby for tighter immigration laws in Ireland and has put forward candidates in local elections.

Its leadership has previously refused to disclose the extent of its membership, but a spokesman, who declined to be named, said it had several thousand paid-up followers: 'The figure is less than 5,000 but growing all the time.'

The spokesman said the party did not wish to be associated with the BNP. Yet Nick Griffin, national chairman of the BNP, says he has been in 'frequent' contact with the ICP. 'We're aware of the good work they're doing and we're prepared to be involved,' he said. 'Many of our members here in the UK are Irish, and they're very worried about what's happening in their homeland with regard to immigrants.'

The ICP mounted a large leaflet drop last week in north Dublin, where many asylum- seekers and immigrants live.

The handouts single out the Nigerians as abusers of the asylum system in the Republic and suggest that asylum-seekers are receiving fertility treatment in Irish hospitals in order to gain residency status through the birth of a child.

The National Consultative Committee on Racism yesterday described the leaflets as 'appalling' and confirmed that they would begin legal proceedings. Director Philip Watt said: 'This is incitement to hatred. The tone is clearly anti-diversity, and they're targeting a very vulnerable section of the community.'

Dublin's Pan African Organisation has reported receiving worried phone calls from Nigerian citizens. A spokesman, Gabriel Olugboyega Ohkenla, said many members had been frightened and distressed by the literature. 'These leaflets are causing tension, and in that situation things could become volatile,' he said. 'Such groups should not be allowed to operate in the community.'

The Gardai yesterday said they could not stop the distribution of literature by any group unless someone obtained an injunction.

Aine Ni Chonaill, a teacher from Clonakilty and the ICP's spokeswoman, said the party will continue its leaflet drops. 'We regularly put out circulars to the public to inform them what is going on in terms of the numbers of immigrants coming to this country,' she said.

What are your opinions on immigration?

gandalf

Maybe you could tell us your opinions on Immigration first. Look at the forum rules Eomer. If you post an article we expect to see your point of view expressed as well.

Also it would be nice to credit where it came from and if its online to have a link as well.

Gandalf.

Dawg

Article

Far as I know the immigration system is being updated so parents of children born here dont automatically gain residency, just the child**

Personally I dont mind letting em in. The Irish have been moving around all over the globe for years, surely we are setting serious double standards telling asylum-seekers here that they cant stay because we just dont want them here.

** nothing to back this up, just have a vague memory of hearing something on the news along those lines.

dathi1

Personally I dont mind letting em in. The Irish have been moving around all over the globe for years, surely we are setting serious double standards telling asylum-seekers here that they cant stay because we just dont want them here.

I'm probably selfish but..

Because the Irish have been "moving" around the world for years we have to solve the third world's problems by opening our borders via uncontrolled immigration to 2.8 billion people and let present and future generations pay the social and economic prices for our neo liberal values?

..Again there are no asylum seekers in Ireland / UK as all the interface countries like Spain, France are democracies.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
via uncontrolled immigration to 2.8 billion people and let present and future generations pay the social and economic prices for our neo liberal values?

Why should it have to be "uncontrolled" ?

I agree mostly with Dawg's stance. I do not accept that any affluent nation should close its doors on the grounds of little more than an attitude of "we dont want you, damned foreigners".

This does not mean "throw the doors open, put out the welcome mat, and step back to avoid the rush", but unfortunately this seems to be the usual interpretation - the classic "if its not X, then it must be Y" non-argument.

jc

Woden

i don't think it is a case of deport or not to deport as i don't think they should be let in in the first place,

someone will have to confirm these facts as i'm not certain but if some one is fleeing a country are they not by some U.N charter meant to travel to the nearest country that is not "troubled" for lack of a better term and also i hear there are no direct flights from dublin to nigeria going by this there should be no asylum seekers from nigeria in this country?

no as i saw i'm not sure if this is correct perhaps someone could confirm.

Xterminator

What a strange and point less poll.

I am pro immigration. I belive controlled immigration of immigrants who bring skills ourt country is short of, brings great benifit to both us, and the imagrants.

But i am very much in favour of deporting people found to have claimed refugee status falsley.
The fraudsters damage the perception of all immigrants, (rightly or wrongly) and just because theey may have got some irish bird up the pole, or settled well into a community doesnt give them a right to stay!

X

Meh

Originally posted by Dataisgod
someone will have to confirm these facts as i'm not certain but if some one is fleeing a country are they not by some U.N charter meant to travel to the nearest country that is not "troubled" for lack of a better term and also i hear there are no direct flights from dublin to nigeria going by this there should be no asylum seekers from nigeria in this country?

no as i saw i'm not sure if this is correct perhaps someone could confirm.

This is correct -- it's called the Dublin Convention, however it's an EU agreement, not a UN treaty, and it only applies to asylum seekers arriving from other EU states. The big problem is finding out which EU states (if any) the asylum seeker passed through on their way here. The Irish government has recently introduced fingerprint identification of asylum applicants, which should solve this problem and allow the convention to be applied properly.

That said, immigration and asylum are two separate issues. The vast majority of non-EU nationals in this country are legal immigrants with proper work/study permits, not asylum seekers. Our health service would have collapsed long ago without immigrant doctors from Nigeria and Pakistan and immigrant nurses from the Phillipines. And our universities would be bankrupt without the €20,000 in fees they charge to students from countries like the US, Malaysia and China.

PH01

If you want to come to Ireland to work you should be allowed to do so - no questions asked.
If you're coming to Ireland just for the welfare then that is another question

I have no problem with people coming here if they have an education, or the ability to add something worthwhile to society. But Ireland already has a problem with the traveller community, sponging off welfare. We don't really need people coming from abroad to do the exact same.

I'm employed, i pay taxes, and i don't really feel like I should pay to keep people in money, when they provide nothing themselves.

mike65

This board must have raked this issue over several times in the last year or two but for what its worth, I'm in favour of immigration for ppl who are in genine fear of thier lives/freedom and for ppl who have a skill they can offer the country (that skill need not be strictly ecomonic). Those who are here simply to hitch a free ride should be turfed out/not allowed in.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

(To Gandalf, since you are a moderator, I would expect you to know that I am not one to hold back on my opinion lol)

I am very pro-immigration, asylum seeking or not. Think about it, this nation is a piece of land; nothing more. Therefore, what right do we, the people who live here by nothing more than accident of birth have to refuse the same right of residency to other people be they from the poorest or the richest nation, skilled or unskilled? The fact is they are people too no matter what the base instinct of nationalism may dictate.

I read articles all the time regarding anti-immigration policies, more usually in the British press since the BNP have become more active in recent years (and we have Fascist Daily aka The Sun). It concerns me that people are so fixated with hiding behind laws of the EU and the UN. I have been to Germany twice and on one of those occasions I went to Munich where there is a significant 'gastarbeiter' population - immigrant workers which have no real official status. There are areas which are practically off limits to these people and this is no more cruelly demonstrated than by the neo-Nazi postering and slogans that one sees spread here and there. The question is why are people so afraid of other people coming to live in their country? Germany and France are notorious for such tough immigration laws and the UK seems to be tightening up after the Songatte debacle. Is it right that the Republic of Ireland should follow? I think not.

Immigrants, once educated, would provide a valuable contribution to our society just like every other person who happens to be born here. There is a cost to the government to educate these people. So what? Why not educate them as (for those capitalists who need economic justification) a long term investment? There is also a need for unskilled labour as much as for skilled - if the government feels unable to educate these people, there are still jobs for them to occupy which provide benefits to society, meanwhile they are learning how society functions. With regard to welfare, are these new immigrants not going to pay taxes if they benefit from our welfare systems? I agree that they should and thus the 'burden' of education is spread equally across society.

Take this one step further, why not just open the whole nation to these people and give them the vote; this is a democracy after all. Read the UN charter. It begins 'We the people...' so why not finally make the move away from the ridiculous idea of one type of people having more rights than another because of where they were born and make this country a truly international state where we actually can follow the idea that the UN initially set out before it became itself bogged down in the politics of the nation state.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
But Ireland already has a problem with the traveller community, sponging off welfare.

Excuse me? The Department of Social Welfare Probably have more than 2,000,000 clients. I think there are approximately 20,000 members of the Traveller community, many of whom work. How do you reconcile these facts with your statement?

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
this nation is a piece of land; nothing more.

I sincerely doubt that. This nation didnt exist 100 years ago, but I'm pretty sure that the land was here then

Therefore, what right do we, the people who live here by nothing more than accident of birth have to refuse the same right of residency to other people be they from the poorest or the richest nation, skilled or unskilled? The fact is they are people too no matter what the base instinct of nationalism may dictate.

And "base insinct" is exactly where it comes from - man's survivalist nature leading to pack, then community, and ultimately a structured form of civilisation is what has dictated that the region and "tribe" you get born into affects your life.

Despite what we may like to think, this is not a global community just yet. While we can point fingers at developed nations and say "shame on you for such outmoded ideas as nationality and borders", I'm pretty sure that if you offered the people many an underdeveloped nation the chance for a fair and equal life if they only give up their national identity, their nation, and their borders, you'll find just how strong the belief in nations is in most of the world.

There is a cost to the government to educate these people. So what?

The "what" is pure mathematics. Uncontrolled immigration would lead to the government facing massive short- to mid-term shortages of resources to meet the needs of these immigrants.

Read the UN charter. It begins 'We the people...' so why not finally make the move away from the ridiculous idea of one type of people having more rights than another because of where they were born and make this country a truly international state where we actually can follow the idea that the UN initially set out before it became itself bogged down in the politics of the nation state.

Read the UN name. It ends with "Nations" - the very concept you are saying is the cause of the problems. Surely its a bit facetious to claim that the United Nations was ever a vehicle to move away from the concept of nations. It was an attempt to increase co-operation amongst them, not to destroy the fundamentals on which they were built.

But hey - why even rely on nations to do the job? Why dont you send all of your money to help those people in their nations. After all, surely with your opposition to the artificiality of nations and borders, you shouldnt need these people to move to a nearby piece of land just to merit an equal share of your wealth.

So, I noticed somewhere that you said you spoke for 10,000 people up North. Well, why dont you stand by your convictions, and get your 10,000 to determine what percentage of the population they are. Then pick a single impoverished nation and pick the same percentage of the population - one at the lower end of the economic scale.

Now, calculate the acerage income amongst all of you, and hand over everything you earn above that to those people. You can make allowances for the difference in cost of living, as long as you also make allowances for the investment in the people themselves to make up for their lack of education and surrounding infrastructure.

See - if such a socialist concept, transcending borders and nationalism means that much to you, why are you waiting for governments to follow your suggestion? After all, you are the one arguing that they are artificial in the first place.

So - willing to stand by your convictions?

jc

Typedef

I support immigration, not because Ireland 'owes' the world a favour, but because, Ireland is an underpopulated place and is a Westernised economy that 'needs' more people in order to grow.

Now, the Ireland-for-Irelander's crowd may bang on about welfare profiteers targeting 'soft Ireland', racial purity or "White Pride World Wide", but, in reality, immigrants made the United States great and on many levels I think immigration (cherry picking if necessary) could also provide a people-dynamic to Ireland, much as the Irish provided a people-dynamic to the US and Britain.

seamus

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I am very pro-immigration, asylum seeking or not. Think about it, this nation is a piece of land; nothing more. Therefore, what right do we, the people who live here by nothing more than accident of birth have to refuse the same right of residency to other people be they from the poorest or the richest nation, skilled or unskilled? The fact is they are people too no matter what the base instinct of nationalism may dictate.

Take this one step further, why not just open the whole nation to these people and give them the vote; this is a democracy after all.

A very noble ideal. However, someone coming from another country to work here, isn't like me moving to Mayo to get a job. Maybe if everyone in the world paid into one big fund, which was then used by a world Government to be distributed fairly, it might work, but if even one country excluded themselves from this International alliance, then it's not really fair that it's citizens could just waltz over to any other country, and claim free education or social welfare, etc. While what you're saying *may* be good for long-term prospects, it would introduce two massive problems -
Population Explosion - where do we house all of these people? We have enough of a problem as it is with our housing plans. A sudden massive influx would destroy us.
Leeching - Regardless of how misty-eyed you get about 'doing your bit', there's always an element who'll just take what they can get, and not give a tap in return. Opening up our borders indiscriminately would attract every single leech from everywhere in the world, IMO.

In the great scheme of things, I would envision a World Government where everyone does their part, no-one gets paid, and movement between borders is free - borders would simply be there so you can identify where you are on the globe . Very Star Trek But until that happens (if we don't kill eachother first) your vision can be nowt more than a pipe dream.

And, eh oh yeah, I am in favour of immigration, where a) the person is an asylum seeker or b) the person has a job secured in the country.

Sand

Im all in favour of controlled immigration of economically useful workers, AND Ireland should ensure it keeps to its international obligations regarding refugees and asylum seekers.

Given our location, its almost impossible for an asylum seeker to arrive here without actually having cherry picked Ireland - so becoming an immigrant rather than a refugee by my personal definition, unless they require refuge from the French- hum, on second thoughts...... We can only deal with so many refugees. For every false claim for asylum Ireland is unable to respond to one more genuine claim for asylum. Something for no doubt well meaning opponents of measures such as deportation of false claimants to think about.

And it must be remembered the refugees that actually make it here are usually the wealthiest or luckiest - the problems that cause them to leave their own homes arent solved at all by their departure. Taking in refugees is grand, but its the equivalent of sticking your finger in the dam whilst it crumbles around you.

Why should it have to be "uncontrolled" ?

I agree mostly with Dawg's stance. I do not accept that any affluent nation should close its doors on the grounds of little more than an attitude of "we dont want you, damned foreigners".

This does not mean "throw the doors open, put out the welcome mat, and step back to avoid the rush", but unfortunately this seems to be the usual interpretation - the classic "if its not X, then it must be Y" non-argument.

Arent you guilty of this yourself? Daithi says hes not in favour of uncontrolled immigration. You then imply if its not uncontrolled, its a doors shut policy. Perhaps all Daithi meant, reasonably, was contolled immigration - specifically in reponse to Dawgs " ah shure, arent they only doing what we didnt do ( I for one havent emigrated anywhere? ) - bring them on in" view of immigration.

Not a big deal, just a tad of pot and kettle about it.

Lemming

Originally posted by seamus

And, eh oh yeah, I am in favour of immigration, where a) the person is an asylum seeker

You're missing a fundamental point here. A refugee is NOT an immigrant by the context in which they find themselves flung by the designs of others.

I think that *part* of the problem in Ireland is that the line between immirgant and refugee has become VERY blurred. So we have refugees being tarred with the same brush as the bogus claimants (ie. illegal immigrants).

To me, if you are an immigrant using asylum laws to get into a country, then you are nothing more than someone attempting to defraud the state which you are attempting to gain access to. Why should I be made to set you up comfortably in a new life? If I went to some other country as a legitmate immigrant I'd be told to fend for myself.


NOTE: this is NOT a discussion on how many people are bogus refugees and vice versa coming into Ireland, but on the distinction between two sets of people that exist inside the system

Éomer of Rohan

And it must be remembered the refugees that actually make it here are usually the wealthiest or luckiest - the problems that cause them to leave their own homes arent solved at all by their departure. Taking in refugees is grand, but its the equivalent of sticking your finger in the dam whilst it crumbles around you

I would respectfully suggest that this is untrue; in fact immigration and exile have been safety valves of certain peoples since the classical age in history. For example political opponents in various nations leave their homeland (eg China and Pakistan recently and Rome and Greece historically) when the opposition are in power and return to seize advantage if the opposition falls. Then they seize power and things go in a circle without the concurrent bloodshed that has occured in Argentina and other regions at the change of power - so sometimes emigration does solve the problem. Taking in refugees like this is a way of helping to avoid such bloodshed.

If you mean eradicating the problems associated with causing emigration for example; famine, war, disease etc, well lets be pragmatic, so far the UN has not been able to stem the causes of those, so we may as well do ALL we can eh?

TBH, I don't really care too much abt regugees. I don't want anyone entering our country to live unless they can provide some input to the nation. Unless they have skills, that can benefit, the country, i don't see them as being welcome.

Whats the point of letting in more people that will just live on welfare, when we have enough of them already?

I don't see that morals are a valid reason in this either. I prefer to be practical. If they want in, they should have the talents/skills to be able to add to the community.

bug

I am anti-immgration. Let me explain..
I work in the public sector and have first hand experience of how this country is being run. There are no adequate systems on any level, just huge black holes where money falls into. i.e. pockets. If you suspect that our public sector isn't working you'd be right. Its full of apethethic people being paid phenomenal amounts of money for doing nothing except their hair/nails. For this reason I do not believe that the department of foreign affairs has the ability to implement a system to exclude those who's aim it is to take advantage of the state. I don't think they have the ability to implement any procedural system at all. There is one in every 20 who has a general interest in their job, but the burocracy tends to kill off their enthusiam or else they get bullied out the door by the unions if they try to change the system. So in my opinion based on first hand information and experience I would say that if the dept. of foreign affairs cannot implement a system they have experience of, how on earth could they begin to implement a successful immigration assessment system.