Protest in support of asylum seekers

by matt Wed Jan 25, 2006 16:16

I agree.. we couldn't possibly take all the world's poor and persecuted in and expect it to work out....but the people who do apply to come here and live and work are trying to escape SOMETHING...whether that's poverty or persecution....
to say there are no alternatives is extremely narrow minded...there are altenatives but none so easy as merely saying sorry but you're not welcome here...
Ireland alone cannot solve all the worlds problems but to take an example....Ireland officially protesting about America invading Iraq would not by itself have achieved anything...we're a small and relatively unimportant country...allowing them to use shannon or not does not have any great effect on americas war effort...however Ireland saying no might just set an example for other countries to follow...
It's the same with immigration..the issue is not to be seen solely in the context of Irish society or Irish economy...by adopting a fairer and more liberal attitude to immigration and asylum seekers and pursuing a more active foreign policy agenda which sets human rights as its highest priority regardless of who the violators of those rights are- other countries might just follow suit. We are in a privileged position-Ireland has had to struggle to gain it's own independence after years of being treated like shit by more powerful countries but how now are we acting any different to those who oppressed our ancestors...

Merely opening our borders will not solve anything-but turning people away who need help and pretending there is no problem won't either. What Ireland and other countries are failing to do is to recognise asylum seekers as not just a problem we have to deal with but as a symptom of a far wider reaching problem which we are doing as little to remedy as is politically and economically expedient. What has Ireland done to actively campaign for a better life for Nigerians in Nigeria....

Oh and by the way the average life expectancy in nigeria is 52 in Ireland we're up at 76. So by sending anyone back to Nigeria they will die 24 years earlier than if they lived here...on average...oh well swings and roundabouts eh-what can we do...it's out of our hands.

Helper, I really don't believe that the irish asylum process employs reasonable doubt...our system is designed to turn people away-I wasn't asking about info being mixed up I was asking about one individual about whom there was doubt..they might be lying or they might be telling the truth..
Are you honestly suggesting that no GENUINE asylum seekers are turned away? the focus is completely weeding out the 'bogus' asylum seekers instead of finding the genuine ones...and this is reflected in the media and statements by the government who always seek to breed fear of asylum seekers instead of changing the focus to how many GENUINE asylum seekers there actually are...who do get in (somehow) and start working and living successfully in Ireland ...and trying to open up the irish publics minds on the issue...
only when considerable public pressure is put on the government to allow certain individuals to stay do they suddenly realise how GENUINE their application was...and for every big campaign how many others are stuck on a plane home?

by SH Wed Jan 25, 2006 16:00

Your words, not mine "she would not meet the criteria for asylum" your post not mine and yet you are now denying ever saying it. How sad of you.

by helper Wed Jan 25, 2006 15:47

"which would you see as the more humanitarian option...send someone back who might be telling the truth or let someone in who might be lying?"

Thats why the current asylum system is in place- because it allows GENUINE asylum seekers to claim asylum. It does this by thoroughly investigating their background, their circumstances, and other related info. A decision is then made and the most beneficial thing to the asylum seeker is that, unlike before, their asylum application is processed much faster. Thats why it does help to properly differentiate between an asylum seeker who is lying and an asylum seeker who is genuine. But what i can't envisage happening: is the mixing up of info regarding the sending back of an asylum seeker who 'might be telling the truth' and one who is granted asylum while 'lying'. The current system we have helps minimise that happening.

by helper Wed Jan 25, 2006 15:33

"You know absolutley nothing about our asylum laws and continualy claim something that is not in our laws"

Where did I say this? I'm still dying for you to give me some evidence of this where I spoke about "something that is not in our laws"?!

Not once, did I mention one thing that is not in our laws when I said 'meet the criteria'. I didn't even go discussing the criteria either, did i?!

Point out where I spoke about "something that is not in our laws".

by SH Wed Jan 25, 2006 15:24

We have open borders within the EU, and if EU citizens so desired over 200 million of them could move to Ireland and live and work and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it, the reality is that most EU citizens don't want to. What you are really talking about is people outside the EU and suggesting that 3 million or more will come over to Ireland is unrealistic. People want to be free to live and work in their own countries free from persecution and deprevation, however due to circumstances this is not always the case.

by Kevin R Wed Jan 25, 2006 15:09

Matt, although your view is well thought and well meaning, the point that has to be addressed is that in reality we need to have some form of immigration rules and the problem is that when people do not meet the criteria, they have to go. If we do not do this we will be flooded and there will be alot more than the missing 3million that will present themselves at our borders.. Its a reality of life and there is no alternative way, no matter how much we wished the way the world was in theory...

by matt Wed Jan 25, 2006 15:03

I think saying if only life were that simple doesn't contribute to either side of the argument...please set me straight.
oh and if you're offering a nobel prize....

by SH Wed Jan 25, 2006 15:03

Your consistent accusations of "do not meet the criteria". Your obviously don't have a clue what the criteria's are so you are repeating false criteria's that are not in our laws. And yet again we still have you completely unable to use one valid argument. Such a waste of space.

by Ian Wed Jan 25, 2006 14:52

What a very interesting and two way comment posted above. Its very well quoted and well spoken of too with its great catchphrases. If only everything in the world was just that simple....!

by matt Wed Jan 25, 2006 14:28

Instead of trying to wind up SH all the time why not give your own opinions for once.
Suppose you were fleeing the authorities in your own country why would you assume the authorities in the first european country you found were any different? And if perchance you had talked to some other asylum seekers who had been turned down by that country when they were fleeing the same situation you were in would you stick your head up and take your chances or would you MAYBE try and find somewhere where your chances of getting in were slightly better? Just because they didn't present in they're first safe country does not make their claim any less valid.....
I would go along with Barra....we exploit their nations freely, use their resources, put their petrol in our cars and build up a good enjoyable lifestyle based on their cheap labour. We do nothing to help them out when their governments oppress them unless they have enough oil to allow us to kind of support the US's latest war of 'liberation'....
We have a better lifestyle but I don't see that we have any more of a right to it than anyone in any other country....we're living in an unequal world that should be obvious...and we're gonna have to give something up if we're going to balance it out....you want so many people not to apply to come here then start getting our government to take real measures to improve their countries...instead of just holding our hands up and saying..it's the law it must be there for a reason... surely the law couldn't be wrong!...

Immigration is of great benefit to our economy(if that is the most important thing you can think of) and to our society which is on the way to becoming very boring altogether-a society based on spending money in a variety of not very interesting ways...but at least we have a good economy...
Which would you prefer your children to see and live in- a society based on protecting what's 'yours' at all costs...where the only thing that matters is wealth...or one where we truly try to do the right thing-to help those who need it......

Don't say our society can't cope-Ireland the island coped with 8 million people before so we have another 3 million to go yet-more people equals a demand for more services equals more jobs...the threat to irish jobs comes not from the increased number of asylum seekers that are coming here...it comes as an inevitable result of the false 'free market' ideal we have pushed on developing countries while employing protectionism at will in our own best interests...keeping immigrants out is part of the same notion....irish people are always proud of the fact that we can go to almost any country in the world and find an irish bar-that our passport is universally accepted unlike americans passports for example- we can go virtually anywhere and work and gain a living...asylum seekers do not have this privilege they cannot just write the irish embassy to get a visa...this notion that you sjould just put up with the country you are born in condemns you for the sins of your fathers....suggesting that a nigerian shoud just put up and shut up where the government and fgm are concerned-that somehow this is their own responsibility and their own fault for being born there is stupid....it also completely ignores irelands role in the world community and allows us to complete ignore any responsibility that we might otherwise be expected to share...see the world's problems as our own....
And might this not solve some of our onw problems too...I mean look at irish society and try and find a meaning to it...find someone who believes this is the best we can do...who thinks that yeah if life really has a meaning it MUST be going out and getting pissed and spending money on things you don't really want or need so that someone else can make a days wage and go out and do the same thing-yes thats our economy...we ignore the most important things after all-our health system is subject to cutbacks and streamlining because we can't afford it...people with any sort of special needs are granted rights only after badgering our government and going to court....we do as little as we can to actually make our society fair while doing as much as we can to keep getting people to go to work and keep the ball rolling...opening our borders-accepting our responsibility to those whose countries have been left behind (as a result of european imperialism for the most part-and surely there we have more of a shared past with them than with those who were doing the oppressing)...maybe this can bring about a more global and more satisfying lifestyle...or maybe not

Finally going back to the original point I would ask you though Helper...which would you see as the more humanitarian option...send someone back who might be telling the truth or let someone in who might be lying? In the first case you might be sentencing someone to death and torture on the other you might let someone get a job and have a good life...it's a tough decision...do let us know.

by helper Wed Jan 25, 2006 13:32

Your usual resort to namecalling when you can't get your point across, needless to say that the questions I asked you were not answered but dressed up by claiming you 'look at cases'.

"You know absolutley nothing about our asylum laws and continualy claim something that is not in our laws"

Where did I say this?! I'm dying for you to give me some evidence of this where I spoke about "something that is not in our laws"?!
I can't wait to see you try to prove this one!

by SH Wed Jan 25, 2006 13:22

Helper,

You are pathetic. Once again you repeat spurious and false allegations for which you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. You ask theoretical questions and expect a direct answer, showing what a buffon you truely are. You know absolutley nothing about our asylum laws and continualy claim something that is not in our laws. You repeat the same bullshit over and over and over again as you have absolutely NO VALID ARGUMENT. Such a waste of space.

by helper Wed Jan 25, 2006 13:15

"I would have to look at the case before I could decide whether we could campaign on it"

A very cunning way of trying to get around the question indeed! Instead of answering it directly, you have decided to portray yourself as a fact finder just like you did with Pamela when it was obvious that Ireland was not her first safe country she landed in and when she would not meet the criteria for asylum. If you claim to 'look' at cases, well then how come you always protest against EVERY deportation including the deportation of failed asylum seekers? Its very ironic when every deportation is opposed by you indeed! Then again, maybe you don't agree with an asylum system.....

by SH Wed Jan 25, 2006 13:00

Repeating something does not make it true. If they dont have documentation then they are refused entrance at the port, and again as there is no indepndent witnesses at the port it has been widely criticised. What you are doing is ignoring ALL THE EVIDENCE, and repeating the same crap over and over and over again. I have already answered your questions above. I said you are asking me a theoritical question and I would have to look at the case before I could decide whether we could campaign on it. So here you are continuing your RED HERRING, ignoring the EVIDENCE and repeating the same bullshit over and over and over again. Display some intelligence, not only are you unrealistic but you are a complete waste of space.

We can expect you to come back repeat the same spurious bullshit again because you have no valid argument.

by helper Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:45

"last year there was around 1700 people refused entry into Ireland at the airport and ports because of no documentation. There is no independent checking at the points of entry and this has received much criticism."


What do you expect when people entering the country have no documentation??
To let them in?!! This is absolutely typical of you and your organisation to ask the Government to excuse those who have no documentation to be allowed entry and stay. Are we still living in our fantasy world?! Or are we being realistic?


I'll also ask you again SH that if an asylum seeker destroys his/her documents while landing in Ireland and refuses to cooperate with the authorities when they ask him/her which first safe country he/she landed in first, would you:

(1)
Send him/her back to that first safe country to seek asylum there?

or

(2)
Just give him/her the green light anyway?

I don't need you to tell me about the numbers being refused or anything else..... I just wan't to know which one you would choose in a situation like that. Lets see what you really believe: so answer the above question.

by SH Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:05

So you still have no arguments and you continue to try and introduce the red herring. Once again I will have to repeat myself for the benefit of people who dont have any other argument. There is a EU fingerprinting system. Once asylum seekers arrive they are fingerprinted and their fingerprints are checked on the EU databse. If their fingerprint appears in another country then they are deported back to the country under the Dublin Convention. This is all information that has been provided on this website by me before and yet again we have the usual gobshites asking the same questions over and over and over and over again.

The fact is that there are very few deportations under the Dublin Convention. This is a fact. Yet we have the usual gobshites repeating false allegations which there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT. Also last year there was around 1700 people refused entry into Ireland at the airport and ports because of no documentation. There is no independent checking at the points of entry and this has received much criticism.

Helper you quite simply haven't the slightest notion what you are talking about. You amuse me so much by this consistent repeating of false allegations in a pathetic attempt to try and make it true. Helper it says a lot about you when you when you now seem to be inventing cases that I have campaigned about. Its the same every time on all these threads from you and your ilk. Repeat the same false allegations over and over and over again, and then start making things up.
One of the prerequisites of having an intelligent debate is that the person you are debating must have some intelligence, as usual you and all your ilk again display no intelligence.

by Ger Tue Jan 24, 2006 20:23

The only solution to the job displacements is to introduce the mandatory and set standard working condidtions and hours for every worker. I agree, bosses out there only care about money and their sheer greed does prove this.

by Helper Tue Jan 24, 2006 20:19

I'll also ask you SH that if an asylum seeker destroys his/her documents while landing in Ireland and refuses to cooperate with the authorities when they ask him/her which first safe country he/she landed in first, would you:

(1)
Send him/her back to that first safe country to seek asylum there?

or

(2)
Just give him/her the green light anyway?


I think I know which one you'd go for!

by Helper Tue Jan 24, 2006 20:13

The vast majority of working class people may very well favour restrictions on migrant workers but the Gov't has to do more to stop job displacements too...

by Helper Tue Jan 24, 2006 20:09

I'll proceed when you answer my question: why should an asylum seeker be granted asylum even if Ireland was not the first country he/she landed in?
No doubt, I'll probably hear more ranting from you again just to sidetrack my question, but the least you can do is have the guts to answer this question.

"What is true and hence a fact is that there are very few deportations under the Dublin Convention".

What was the deportation of failed asylum seekers back to England a couple of weeks before the christmas all about? Strangely, that was the one you were opposing meaning that you wan't to call a halt to EVERY deportation of failed asylum seekers who landed in another first safe country before they landed in Ireland. I agree, it does say a lot!

by Tinkin Tue Jan 24, 2006 19:04

(Once again helper you try and introduce a red herring into the debate. If the Dublin Convention applied then a deportation order would be made under that convention. There are very few Dublin Convention deportation orders given. Your continued attempt to continue to try and introduce this red herring is more a symbol of the fact that you have no arguments that have any bearing in reality.)

Why do you think this is SH?

I will give you a hint,

It is only possible to enforce the convention if the asylum seeker truthfully tells the authorities which safe country they entered first and they are all asked without fail.

Claiming ignorance, destroying documentation or (your most despised sin) lieing, confounds this process.

I await your alternative explanation.

by SH Tue Jan 24, 2006 15:52

How surprising observer, another post from you which is completley false. You talk about employers yet previously you exposed yourself as lying about IBEC's position on immigration. Now, once again, you talk about economics without having the singlest notion what you are talking about. Wages have increased in Ireland and labour costs have not been reduced. It is an absolute fallacy and a complete lie for you to suggest that. The economy is being fuelled by consumer spending not low labour costs and some economists suggest that that consumer spending will increase growth in Ireland by 6% this year. So spare us any further posts from you, every single one of yours is always an utter fallacy. Will we ever get a post from you that even resembles the truth?

by observer Tue Jan 24, 2006 15:36

The fact is, whether you like it or not, that the vast majority of working class people favour restrictions on immigration. And with good reason.

Why is the economy doing so well? Whose economy is this now? Certainly the employers are doing well and as anyone with a smidgen of understanding of the capitalist system will tell you, that is generally due to being able to increase the level of surplus value by reducing labour costs. Hence the reason the bosses want a large supply of cheap migrant workers.

by SH Tue Jan 24, 2006 15:08

Consistently repeating something does not make it true. What is true and hence a fact is that there are very few deportations under the Dublin Convention. Your constant false rantings show two things. The first being that you know nothing about asylum in Ireland, and the second that you have absolutely no arguments that have any basis in fact.

by barra Tue Jan 24, 2006 15:03 aranu21 at hotmail dot com

How many us eat food, use products and raw resources from the third world? It does not require much research to work that one out.

We want it all our own way in this country. The mainstream consumer culture cares nothing about what channels and methods are used produce our wealth. This issue reflects our lack of under standing to poverty.

It is a common belief that developing (or not developing more like in demise) countries need us more than we need them. The fact is we depend on them, suck them dry ( in many cases over centuries) and allow corruption to go unchecked.

When a tiny, tiny, faction makes it to or countries it’s us shouting that we are being over run. Unless we ask ourselves some hard questions and take control and responsibility for the products we buy, our current way of living and their consequences what level respect will the human race ever have for itself.

Remember we are the one destroying and draining most of the world with our excess living and apathy. The culture we live in has destroyed the social orders of many countries to create nuclear families, workers and consumers.

No one has the right to preach on a high chair in this country about anti emigration issues. (the chair was probably made in Nigeria ( in the fraction of native forests we left standing after furniture industry " bought them" ).

I don’t mean to rant I belive in showing not telling as words are cheap

ONE RACE HUMAN RACE

by Helper Tue Jan 24, 2006 14:50

Well, rant on all you like but you are unable to answer my question because the Dublin Convention does apply to a majority of cases of asylum seekers when its perfectly clear that they hadn't sought asylum in the first country they landed in. I'll take it that you are unable to answer my question I asked before; why an asylum seeker should be granted asylum even if Ireland was not the first country he/she landed in?

by SH Tue Jan 24, 2006 14:45

Once again helper you try and introduce a red herring into the debate. If the Dublin Convention applied then a deportation order would be made under that convention. There are very few Dublin Convention deportation orders given. Your continued attempt to continue to try and introduce this red herring is more a symbol of the fact that you have no arguments that have any bearing in reality.

by Helper Tue Jan 24, 2006 14:27

Why are we going back on the old threads again when its obvious you didn't wan't to answer my previous question before which asked you why an asylum seeker should be granted asylum even if Ireland was not the first country he/she landed in? Also, I'll ask if you yourself know anything about our asylum system because you are trying to whitewash facts while denying the ones you see as being counterproductive to your arguement. We know all you wan't to do is just to abolish all our asylum laws completly and that is equally out of line..

by Caoimhe Tue Jan 24, 2006 14:02

"Most of the people who were on the Irish Ferries march (78% of them as indicated by today's poll) WERE protesting against people coming here and taking Irish jobs. "

Can you tell me so then why the economy is performing a lot better than ever before? Your statement is an absolute flaw about this and it would do if you done some more research on this. Go educate yourself observer, your posts prove you know nothing about our asylum system

by SH Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:44

It is the World Helath Organisation which provides the analysis of FGM in Nigeria not RAR. It is rampant across the whole country and not in any one part like you falsely suggest. As for feeling none the wiser, poor you, completely unable to assimilate the most basic information. Your irrationality by wanting to refuse asylum to those fleeing FGM, represents nothing less than an irrational, incompassionate person.

Helper, I will again talk about the Dublin Convention. If an asylum seeker should have had there asylum case processed by another EU country then they would be deported to that country under the Dublin Convention. Groundless accussations about first safe countries are a red herring. The Dublin convention has been used to deport asylum seekers numerous times. It would help if you actually tried to learn what our asylum laws were rather than coming on here and making ridiculous and baseless assertions. People like you are completley unable to access the most basic information that is readily available on the internet and instead post whatever untrue nonsense comes into your head.

Observer2, if you take a look at my posts I did not call anyone racist. In fact recently it is people opposed to immigration that come on here and make false accusations that they are being called racist. It is just a pathetic attempt by them to try and deflect from the fact that their posts are utterly false.

Observer yet again another post of nonsense. Trying to revise history. You are a very bad trade unionist, not only did you previously lie about IBEC's immigration policy, but now you are going against what the trade unions said the march was about. Also to suggest that an Irish Times poll represents the Trade Union march is taking intellectual stupidity to a new level.

by observer Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:19

Most of the people who were on the Irish Ferries march (78% of them as indicated by today's poll) WERE protesting against people coming here and taking Irish jobs.

Ned O'Keeffe (who has to be elected by these people) understands that. Obviously revolutionary socialists (remarkable for their inabilty to secure such support) do not.

by Kevin R Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:18

Thank you for your little rant. On your comments on other threads, i am responding to this thread, this topic, heading, title etc. I couldn't care less if this has been covered on previous threads, I am only concerned about today and what is being said in todays thread.. After assimilating your tripe, i feel none the wiser. Yes, the majority of the public are not stupid, just read the front page of the indo today to get a feel for peoples views and we can see the way pulic opinion is. You and your small but vocal groups such as rar are unrealistic and opportunistic. FGM is not as widespread as you make out. Yes it goes on and is more widespread in some areas as opposed to others but is NOT rampent all over Nigeria. There are many countries in the world that have wrongs and bad practices happening in them, even some western countries. That is not a sole reason to allow anyone from that country claim asylum here. Wheather you like it or not, that is the reality and alot of people feel that way so why don't stop trying to force feed your irrational views..

by Helper Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:06

Well SH,
Whats pathetic is your attempt to try to re-write the asylum laws. Its clear that you are trying to look for something that I can never see happening. That is: the issue of giving status to every asylum seeker as well as those who do not qualify for it. It is unrealistic to demand this because its not going to happen and that is the truth. People like you resort to namecalling when you are unable to argue your point. Also, can you you please state to me, if you haven't done so already, why an asylum seeker should be granted asylum even if Ireland was not the first country he/she landed in?

by Con Carroll - Cl;ass-war Mon Jan 23, 2006 17:06

Ned O kefee Fianna Fail Cork
last night told us on RTE last night that people who protested about Irish Ferries .
were protesting about people from other countries arriving in Ireland taking Irish jobs


Mc Dowell
turns up for the launch of metro eireann 2006 today in Harcourt st
telling people that there are no political, parties operating on immigaration issues
residents against racism organised a picket at the launch
and entered when Mc Dowell was speaking
Mc Dowell welcomed protesters
Mc Dowell was heckled as he was speaking.
and told to go back to ku klux klan

exploitation
Eammon Murray
is the person who is involved in exploitation of people from Latvia and other countries in Kilnaneck in Co. Cavan.
as mushroom pickers for 2.50 per hour

by SH Mon Jan 23, 2006 16:07

Kevin it is pathetic of you to suggest that I talk down to people. If you couldn't be bothered to go through the previous threads where everything you have regurgitated has been dealt with then that is your problem not mine. The simple fact is that there is not one point you can bring up which hasn't been substantially dealt with before. Go read through them, and if you raise something new then I will deal with it. You will not be able to and all you will do is regurgitate the same old tired crap. The arguments raised by people of your ilk is always complete and utter bullshit. And I have repeated myself numerous times on threads because idiots like yourself cannot be bothered to read previous threads and instead regurgitate the same nonsense. Do everyone a favour and go off and read a bit before embarassing yourself. Like for example your nonsense on FGM. FGM has been dealt with substantially before and yet you come on and talk utter crap about it. FGM in Nigeria happens all over the country and is not particular to an area like you suggest. It is not a muslim tradition, in fact more christians have it done than muslims. The WHO estimate that over 50% of Nigerian women have had this procedure performed on them, however they warn that the figure could be much higher. This was all info that was there before which you didn't bother looking up and instead wasted my time. As for what the public want, people like you wouldn't have a clue, you try to pretend that the public are as stupid as you are, well they are not.

As for observer you consistently and repeatedly post utter falsities. I dont think I have ever seen a post that you made that has had anything accurate in it. Labour and Sinn Fein supporters were least favourable to the citizenship referendum. You again try and introduce your "theory" as fact, it is completely untrue and again is a continuation of your nonsense. You have still refused to apologise for consistently lying on this website.

As for helper if the Dublin Convention applied then the asylum seeker in question would be deported to the EU country where they landed first. Their asylum case would not be processed in Ireland it would be processed there. Again this has been detailed on other threads.

As for factfinder who doesn't seem to be able to find any facts. Amnesty Internationals annual report http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/irl-summary-eng

The US State department report
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41687.htm
"Societal discrimination and racial violence against immigrants and ethnic minorities, such as Asians and Africans continued to be a growing problem. Racially motivated incidents involved physical violence, intimidation, and verbal slurs, and the majority of incidents of racist violence took place in public places."

As for observer2. There are a lot of Irish missionaries in Nigeria still, who teach and run the hospitals. If you talk to the majority of Nigerian asylum seekers they will tell you that it is the Irish missionaries that recommend Ireland as a safe haven from persecution. To try and suggest that there is a big criminal conspiracy going on in Nigeian Middle class circles isn't adequately analysing the situation in Nigeria and does not add up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Suggestions like this come from the right wing who attempt to engender in socialists class antagonism towards asylum seekers. Are you trying to suggest that Nigeria is a safe country?, which quite clearly it isn't. Are you trying to suggest, like McDowell that because we get a large volume of applicants from one country we should kick them all out? because clearly that is a ridiculous suggestion. Nigeria is a corrupt, unsafe country which still brutally suppresses political opposition, legally oppresess women and has shot dead protestors.

by observer Mon Jan 23, 2006 15:18

ALL the statistics I cited previously come from OFFICIAL sources and are properly interpreted. You cited a 20,000 census figure that in no way alters the proportions of ADULTS in the various categoreis. But I'm prepared to leave that.

Now, as for the figures I cite on the referendum and in today's poll. It stands to reason that if 80% of the electorate vote for something, that the majority of working class voters also did. But apart from that, polls conducted at the time proved that strongest support for the proposition came from working class voters.

Likewise if you read the Times poll, strongest support for controls on migrant workers comes from working class voters, and the weakest from the ABC category and from PD voters. Would love to see what % of Labour and SF voters supported controls.

by Kevin R Mon Jan 23, 2006 15:08

I don't know where to start in addressing each of your outlandish and pathetic remarks. It would be nice to have some genuine people talking sense on this thread instead of the same old same old twisted retoric.

To SH, you sound very self righteous as if you own this site and think you can talk down to people. You keep referring to previous threads have dealt with this and that. You are the troll that is engaging in the asylum seeker debate but anything written you don't like has you going, that was dealt with previously. What do you expect should be written then. Just face it, you cannot win this debate cause you have no idea what you are talking about and just rant on with your idealistic bullshite.

To Caoimhe, FGM is not enough to be granted asylum cause it does not take place in all of Nigeria and if it is included it will be used as an excuse by many women who do not live in threat of it. If a woman is thought to be genuine, they do have a chance of getting asylum here. When the dept feels a person is bogus, they are refused. Our system needs to be tightened, not loosened and the majority of people in this country feel the same but you want to ram down our throats your views and call us racists. That is pathetic and we won't be bullied by your type.

Pat C. You can do better than that. The illegal Irish are illegal, have no chance of asylum and if they are caught, will be sent home and will put their hands up and say they were illegal and were caught so the thats the way it is. Irish are deported every week from the states and it something all the illegals know. Whats that got to do with asylum seekers in Ireland??

by factfinder(aka buffon!) Mon Jan 23, 2006 14:30

SH wrote:
"It has been criticised nationally and internationally"

can you provide references?

last i heard the outgoing unhcr rep said we had one of the fairest systems in Europe.

Also if fgm is accepted as grounds for asylum in the uk why are these women bypassing the uk to come to ireland to claim asylum?

your arguments dont stand up which is why you attempt to incite hatred by labelling all who disagree with your ill thought out ideas as racists.

The game is up.

by helper Mon Jan 23, 2006 14:20

I'd just like you to confirm if, whether or not, we are trying to re-write the asylum laws? Looking at some of these threads, it appears we are trying to look for something that I can never envisage happening. That is: the issue of giving status to every asylum seeker as well who does not qualify for it. It is unrealistic to demand this because its not going to happen.

by helper Mon Jan 23, 2006 14:13

"send the irish illegals in the us home right now".
The Irish situation in the US has absolutely nothing to do with the situation of asylum seekers here in this country. Yet, we seem to be using this as a bargaining tool to win our arguement. If an asylum seeker is in the process of going through the application process, then its wrong to demand an outcome before the outcome of that persons application is given to him/her.

If an asylum seeker lands in a first country other than Ireland, then the Dublin convention applies to that person and its obvious that that person would not qualify for asylum if Ireland wasn't the first safe country he/she landed in.

by pat c Mon Jan 23, 2006 13:04

send the irish illegals in the us home right now. thats the logic of what some people are posting here. its also the logic that 78% of irish people seem to agree with. coming soon to a town near you 80,000 disgruntled irish illegals being returned home from the US.

by SH Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:51

An open border policy has operated before in other countries and has been an economic success. That issue has been debated before and you can access those threads on this website. Everything you have said has been addressed before on other threads and it is no surprise that the same crap is once again being regurgitated by people like yourself. All your points have been addressed on other threads and you can access them very easily. By regurgitating the same crap continuosly on every anti racist thread you waste peoples time just go through previous threads and access them or one can only come to the conclusion that you are just another troll.

As for observer yet again a post from yours is utter nonsense. In the referendum the biggest supporters were from PD supporters and Fine Gael supporters not the working class. Can we ever expect to get an accurate post from you. Every single post of yours is based on inaccuracies.

by observer Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:40

80% voted for the referendum and 78% support work permits. Biggest majorites are among working class voters.

by Kevin R Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:38

Typical, you have to resort to the usual anti immigrant label to try and win your arguement.. i'm not anti immigrant, i have no problem with peoples race or creed. That not the point and its the likes of you that always have to drag an immigration debate down to a racism debate. I just know like alot of people in this country that immigration needs to be controled which means enforcing rules which involves deportations and refusals. What other way can it be done. Its that or an open border which is impossible so options are very limited. I just would like to know how you think our system can be improved or made better. My feelings is that you just want to make it alot easier for people to get in and thats not the way forward and in the interests of the country as a whole..

by Caoimhe Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:35

G. Jackson,
"Many asylum seekers have seen Irelands asylum as very easy going and relaxed over the last couple of years" , where did u get dis info from? It certaintly wasnt from a survey of asylum seekers. It sounds exactly like the crap that McDowell throws into the media so that the Irish public will back the racist laws that he brings in.

Kevin R
"The current system is fair and balanced". Oh so thats why it refuses to grant asylum for Female Genital Mutilation then is it? Even places like the UK and the USA grant asylum on the grounds of FGM! Thats why Ireland has a history of ripping families apart by deporting people without their children. That's why Ireland has a policy of deporting chiuldren who managed to make it Ireland by themselves ('unaccommpanied minors') when they turn 18 ('age out') etc, etc, etc.

"a big chunk of asylum seekers are bogus and fakes. They are merely economic migrants." Sounds remarkably like a McDowell press release. And is a classic example of racism against asylum seekers.

by SH Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:06

Once again an anti racist thread attracts anti immigrants like moths to a flame. Once again the same ridiculous points are trotted out by the anti immigrants. Once again we have posts from the anti immigrants that descend to the utterly ridiculous.

Which EU asylum system is better? What a ridiculous question. Our aim is to have an asylum system that is fair, transparent and has human rights as the focus. We have, at the moment an unfair system, completely lacking in transparency whose focus is to deport as many people as possible. To try and say well asylum systems are crap in other countries so we should follow suit is an utterly ridiculous argument that only an utter buffon would utter, so of course we should have expected our usual anti immigrants to regurgitate it yet again on a new thread. Other countries have certain things better in their systems, and we have certain things better in ours. Overall across europe asylum systems are bad.

by mumbo jumbo Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:38

which european system is better?
The uk one? where people are held in detention centres? or the french one, which also uses detention centres? neither of these pay asylum seekers anything.

So which european system is better than ours?

by SH Mon Jan 23, 2006 09:44

The asylum system as it stands is an utter sham. It is completely unworkable. It has been criticised nationally and internationally. The basis of the Irish asylum system is to deport as many people as possible. The basis should be the human rights of the applicants. This issue has been debated thoroughly on this website and you can go through previous threads and read the information there rather than have people regurgitate here again.

by G. Jackson Sun Jan 22, 2006 01:11

All I said was that the basic immigration laws should be upkept otherwise you may as well have no system. Asylum seekers are going through the asylum procedure at present and why try to demand that this system be completly discarded? I just can't see the logic in this request.

by G. Jackson Sat Jan 21, 2006 17:51

I'd just like you to back up your statement you mentioned above. Where did I imply that "people of different ethnicity should be treated differently"?? As the usual people in favour of abolishing our immigration rules resort to namecalling when they can't argue their point.

by oisin Sat Jan 21, 2006 17:07

Thats just an elaborately racist way of saying that people of different ethnicity should be treated differently. tpyicall of the like of Michael McDowell to hide their prejudice behind legaleze

by G. Jackson Sat Jan 21, 2006 16:57

Oisin,
Many asylum seekers have seen Irelands asylum as very easy going and relaxed over the last couple of years and from what you say in your comment above (Asylum seekers deserve entry to this country), this would give the impression to me that you would not see the need in having such asylum laws in our country because they were being disregarded by certain asylum seekers and the laws on immigration had to be reformed for this reason as well as a number of other reasons. The laws are there for the benefit of everybody.

by oisin Sat Jan 21, 2006 16:21

The governemts attitude toward suffering aylum seekers is an absolute disgrace. Asylum seekers deserve entry to this country, the right to work & study, full equality before the law, and more of a say in the running of this country.

by G. Jackson Fri Jan 20, 2006 18:55

People who apply for asylum are going through the official process and why try to rid that process completly??