McDowell does it again

by rar watch Thu Jun 02, 2005 21:56

I notice RAR are not out protesting at this deportation says a lot, if you are not nigerian or black they dont give a shit.

by Al Thu Jun 02, 2005 22:41

The 7 year old stayed because the child had been removed from school by the aunty already, probable on the parents say so.
why were they claiming asylum from Romania anyway?

by hmm Thu Jun 02, 2005 23:32

' probable on the parents say so'

and how would you know this to be true?

Are romanian parents known for giving up their children on a whim?

Are there not some adoption laws in this country? Parents cannot just give their children away without some govt oversight, no?

by toneore Fri Jun 03, 2005 03:01 toneore at eircom dot net

Yes, another disgraceful deportation, totally anti-family. A total disgrace. I have to say there does appear to a lack of concern by the RAR crowd - yet again, like the unfortunate child in Indonesia, they've been found wanting...

by Colm Gallagher Fri Jun 03, 2005 03:43 toinanbhaile at hotmail dot com

It was reported on the RTÉ news at 7.30 on Thursday that Gardaí had gone back yo yhe young lad's school and searched the premises looking for him. This seems to have been in contravention of a statement issued by the Minister of Education earlier this year that Guards were not to raid schools, searching for children to deport. The whole story smacks of a racial intolerance that beggars belief. It stinks of a planned repatriation of selected ethnic groups. Since the first wave of Romanians came here in the 90s, they have been scapegoated by elements of the press and by politicians. The Nigerians coming to this country have also suffered the same fate.
In response to Al, I assume from the same news programme that they were seeking asylum from Romania because they are Romany Gypsies. Romanies all over Europe are being hounded because their culture doesn't comply with the homogenised view of what we all should be that is being projected by, amongst others, the new European Constitution.
We also have the same situation in Ireland, where the indigenous travelling community are also being hounded because their nomadic way of life doesn't fit into the vision of the Celtic Tiger.
How short-sighted and tunnel-visioned we, as a society, have become!
Elsewhere on this site, there are squabbles about the North and the direction it should be taking and yet the exact same circumstances prevail for immigrants living there, with almost daily attacks on immigrant workers in Co.Armagh, Co. Antrim, Belfast and Dungannon.
This has got worse, I believe, since the referendum denying Irish citizenship to children born here was passed so overwhelmingly. The shame of that referendum will come back and haunt Irish society in the decades to come.

by Robert Fri Jun 03, 2005 11:26

I have to be honest guys, I have no sympathy for this family at all. Why on earth do these people try and seek asylum from Romania?

Here are my views on the asylum issue and our governments response to it: http://asylumireland.blogspot.com/

Anyway - have a good day.

by Darragh Fri Jun 03, 2005 19:59

Just read Robert's blog, there are no views on asylum there, it seems to be a blog dedicated to licking Michael McDowell's arse.

by Robert Fri Jun 03, 2005 21:25

Good Evening,

The whole blog is about the asylum issue. I have already stated that I have no sympathy for the predicament of this roma family.

Asylum applications from Romania should not be entertained for a single minute. Romania is a safe Country so why should Mc Dowell even listen to their claims. The Geneva Convention really needs to be looked at, it belongs to a different era.

Robert

by on heat Fri Jun 03, 2005 21:26

that arguably if the €U had not followed the collapse of the Berlin wall, most of eastern europe, might have continued with centralised state systems of appaling brutality and oppression to their peoples and as many attempts to claim asylum in the west would have occured.

& Let us reflect...

that arguably if the €U had not occured money laundering would not have been so easily dealt with in such a short period with the notable exceptions of the former sterling area, but with side effects on the economies and black markets of both western and eastern europe, as those little pesatas big notes, and those franc big notes, and those mark big notes became so quickly worthless.

Which refl€ction doth please thee more?

by Robert Fri Jun 03, 2005 22:10

To be honest I'm not sure what the last comment has got to do with the topic at hand. Romania is a perfectly safe Country, if it were dangerous it wouldn't have received almost 12,000 asylum applications since 1991 (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - Branch Office for Romania). And if it were so dangerous for them to return, Romania wouldn't be on the 2007 list for entry into the European Union.

So I am not worried about the fate of this and the other Roma family's who were deported. It is a pity that they tried the tactic of leaving their innocent child behind. I'm not a Mc Dowell ass licker but I do agree with his policies on the asylum scandal.

Robert

by redjade Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:40

for some perhaps - but not necessarily if you are Roma (Gypsy) - which this family is.

Romania will most likely be in the EU in a couple years time, so why does this govt waste so much time and money on deporting people who will be allowed to freely come here soon anyway?

From a purely EU/Capitalist point of view - which I'm not - would it not make more sense to allow Romanians and others from future EU states to stay, develop contacts and do business here and such in preparation for the future expanded EU.

This would be good for the 'EU Project', no?

I suspect that like this government's Anti-Nigerian stance, this deportation is an Anti-Roma act and thus descrimination.

Can not people learn a little from the past? The Nazis only killed 400,000 of them!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_(people)

by Robert Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:24

Hi Redjade,

Just to correct you on your last point the government is not Anti-Nigerian, the government is dealing with a major problem of bogus asylum seekers. Nigerian's in particular abused the Citizenship loophole, this was closed by an overwhelming majority of 80% in the referendum. Minister Mc Dowell is only doing what the electorate expects of him. In relation to your comments about allowing people to stay on the basis that their Country of origin will be in the EU soon - that is a rubbish argument. It is costing far too much money to keep them here in the first place.

Your allegation that the government is Anti-Roma is also without foundation. They make up one of the largest sections of bogus asylum seekers - they should expect to be deported. Romania is a modern progressive society, there is no torture there.

End of Debate

by Al Sat Jun 04, 2005 19:09

' Probable on the parents say so'
and how would you know this to be true? - The word is probable, not definitely.

Are Romanian parents known for giving up their children on a whim? - Apparently so, how else do you explain the child being removed from school by someone other than the parents and supposedly without their knowledge.

Are there not some adoption laws in this country? Parents cannot just give their children away without some govt oversight, no? - Parents can leave a child in the care of a relative. Parents can abandon children, it’s not legal but there isn’t a lot to be done about it except force parents to keep children, which is hardly in the child’s best interests.

Fact: Romania is not in the middle of a civil war, religious war and no genocide is taking place.
Question: What’s their claim for asylum?

Answer: They didn’t have one.

As for searching a school, I think a child going missing justifies a search. Either the parents instructed someone to take their child or they didn’t. One is a plan to leave their child behind; the other is called kidnapping. Minister for education has to authority over the Gardai.

by Robert Sat Jun 04, 2005 20:25

I couldn't agree more with the last comment, he has spoken the truth.

The lies you hear about the situation in Romania are just that - lies ! It's a very stable Country.

by Jane - Labour Youth UCD Sat Jun 04, 2005 21:32

Robert, I'd like to take you up on your continued use of this phrase.

To call someone a "bogus asylum seeker" implies that he or she is trying to advance his claim for asylum by lying and misrepresenting the truth.

However, this is not your judgement to make, and it is an extremely prejudicial and unfair term to use.

Whether or not an individual seeking asylum has a sufficient claim or not can only be decided by the organs of the state. It is not your place to call them "bogus". If someone is called a “bogus asylum seeker”, this is not legal language or official terminology. It does not come from the state or any of its bodies. It only comes from the individual using the phrase. If the state decides to reject their applications then they are failed in the eyes of the state, and are termed as such. The state never calls them BOGUS, it calls them FAILED, and the introduction of the former word into the immigration debate by people who have nothing to do with the workings of the Immigration Bureau has a dangerous and negative effect. I'll explain this further, and then why I think the differentiation is important.

Once their claim has been processed, they are not deemed to be "seeking asylum" anymore. A decision has been made on their case (however disputed this decision may be). Therefore, they cannot be called a "bogus" asylum seeker, but they have failed in their attempts. It can ONLY be assumed that this was because they told the truth, but their reasons were deemed inadequate by the state. The state never calls anyone a "bogus" asylum seeker. Only individuals do, and the term shouldn’t be lent any weight during the course of an argument.

Of course there are probably situations where people DO lie in their applications, but there is no way of proving this in every case, so for the sake of fairness to the people who do tell the truth, we can only argue from the point of assuming that all applications are truthful yet insufficient.

"Failed" and "Bogus" are not a million miles apart but I think the difference is important, and that we should do everything we can to try and get away from the unfortunately pervasive attitude in this country that these people are trying to "trick" us. I wouldn't argue that the government has been right on all its decisions regarding asylum seekers in this country, and that all applications deemed "failed" were in dealt with fairly. In fact, quite the opposite is the case in my own opinion. However, it's loose language like this which can contribute to the negative impression of genuine asylum seekers who are seeking refuge in this country.

The phrase "bogus asylum seeker" is the stuff of a Daily Mail hack's wet dreams and serves only to forcefeed the already bulging overstuffed belly of xenophobia hanging over the belt of society. It has unfortunately become quite popular in debate on the subject. Officially there is no such thing as a "bogus asylum seeker" and the phrase only comes from individuals who have no legal basis for their claims. I think it's incredibly dangerous to link these words so easily in your arguments, and it'd be great to see people stop using it so loosely as a descriptive term.

by Al Sat Jun 04, 2005 23:22

the fact that such a long post had nothing better to say other than speak about a words definition shows the arguement is on its last legs.
Why were they claiming asylum? there is no reason whatsover for claiming asylum therefore to claim asylum makes you a 'bogus asylum seeker' or 'false asylum seeker' or 'un-warranted asylum seeker' or 'fabricated asylum seeker'. Whatever word you use the meaning under these circumstances ramains the same.
If I claimed social welfare while working is that not a 'bogus' claim?

by ? Sun Jun 05, 2005 00:05

If I claimed social welfare while working is that not a 'bogus' claim?


Maybe and maybe you would be called a welfare cheat.

Some might even call you a parasite or worse and you would be ostracised, fined or even jailed for your abuse of a humane system.

What was Janes point again?

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 00:57

Jane you do not have a copyright on the term "bogus" The fact is that failed asylum seekers are deemed bogus by the state and indeed by the vast majority of its citizens. These false asylum seekers exploit the good, the naïve, the emotional and also the stupid in this country. I welcome genuine asylum seekers but Roma claims should not even be entertained. All I can say is I'm glad labour won't get into government at the next election – leave to remain would be its main policy. By the way, the term bogus came from our own Minister for Justice!

by Al Sun Jun 05, 2005 00:58

I believe the 'point' was the correct use of the english language. What that has to do with the subject, I dont know.
Perhaps Jane was actually taking one step further and calling a spade a spade? parasite you say?

by Jane - LY Sun Jun 05, 2005 01:09

"By the way, the term bogus came from our own Minister for Justice!"

More fool him then.

Bogus implies that people are telling lies.
The state never refuses an asylum application on the basis that the applicant is bogus, phoney, etc..but only on the basis that their grounds for asylum have been deemed insufficient.

If someone is called "bogus", it never has any legal standing, isn't any official term, but is only the opinion of whoever is throwing the stones.

We can see from this thread how subjective that can be. Some people have said they believe Romanians seeking asylum to be bogus, while others have argued that for some minorities, Romania can be a dangerous country and these people are indeed telling the truth.

It's a suggestive word, without anything legal or concrete to back it up. It implies lying where none has been proven by any organ of the state. It helps to create the whirlwind of panic around asylum applications in this country. It's not an anal retentive point about the English language, but it's something that's been brought to my attention especially by the increased tendency to refer to people as bogus when their claims haven't even been processed yet, never mind failed. Dangerous and prejudicial.

Slight tangent to the main body of the thread I'll admit, but Indymedia threads aren't really known for sticking to the point 100%, are they? Sure isn't debate a great thing all the same.

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 01:34

One could say the same about using the word genuine to describe asylum seekers. Likewise it has no legal standing, is not an official term, it can be a suggestive word with nothing concrete to back it up !! But then what can we do with such dilemmas in our use of the words ..... perhaps one could consider something official or concrete, if you like, .... the fact that over 95% of asylum applications are unfounded --- ie, not genuine, dishonest, false or even bogus.

One point, Jane , to consider --- some genuine asylum seekers may make a claim, and unfortunately their claim could fail. That I regret. However, what word would you use to describe a dishonest asylum seeker who knowingly and cynically abuses the process to make a false and groundless claim? I was using bogus. Give me an alternative.

by Jane - LY pers capacity Sun Jun 05, 2005 01:50

"However, what word would you use to describe a dishonest asylum seeker who knowingly and cynically abuses the process to make a false and groundless claim?"

Abused the process how? Do you mean someone who you feel has succeeded in getting through the system, despite making "false claims"? Or someone you've decided is making a groundless claim before their application has been processed by the relevant bodies? I'll restate, if their application has been processsed and rejected due to insufficient grounds, the state hasn't labelled them as cynical abusers. Only you have.

If it's the first case, I'd just say this. You may believe them to be dishonest, but if the state has deemed them to be not so, why are you invested with the power to say otherwise? I realise this argument cuts both ways, but you aren't presenting undoubtable fact, just opinion, and hypothetical opinion at that. So I find it hard to answer that question when I don't believe it is possible for you to objectively get to that position in the first place.

If it's the second case, I don't think I need to argue against the illogicisms and inherent unfairness of that hypothecism much.

By the way, I think this can be kept good humoured, if that's alright? No need for snide remarks from either side that I can see.

by Al Sun Jun 05, 2005 02:14

Jane,
If I entered America and claimed asylum would I be a bogus claim? Of course I would, the fact that the state does not use the wording is of little difference. The fact is the state rejects the claim, why? Mostly because there was no justification in claiming asylum.

by Jane - LY pers capacity Sun Jun 05, 2005 02:43

Your claim would be unjustified, but not fallacious. It would have been rejected, not because you were making up a situation, but because your situation was deemed insufficient for asylum in America. Which makes your claim failed, and not bogus.

And if, in your application, you HAD lied, but the end result was the same, then is it really such a big deal to resist calling your claim "bogus" but simply "failed", in order to protect the group of people in the following paragraph?

The reason why I am harping about this is because of the implications terming failed asylum applications as "bogus" has on people who have come here with a genuine attempt to gain asylum, who have told the truth, but have still had their application turned down by the government.

While I can appreciate there are most probably instances where people come here and fabricate stories in order to try and get asylum, surely you can also entertain the simultaneous possibility of truthful people who are nevertheless denied their applications because their TRUTHFUL claims are still regarded by the authorities as insufficient grounds for asylum?

It is for those people that the use of the word bogus becomes dangerous. They are not bogus, they are simply failed. Sure, the same arguments can be applied to the word "genuine", but accusing someone of being a genuine asylum seeker seems to me far less likely to incite unfounded criticism, hatred and perhaps even violence.

Throwing out the word bogus is some way towards being a safeguard for those people, and perhaps more importantly towards discourage the pre-judgement of people as being "bogus" when their claims have not even been processed yet, and keeping our descriptions to those who are successful, those who have failed, and those who are pending decision.

by Pseudonom Sun Jun 05, 2005 03:30

Jane.

I think you are trying to make the claim that this Government turns down genuine asylum applicants and therefore, the term "bogus" is unjustified.

Is that what you are saying?

Before you answer, bear in mind, the "Government" does not adjudicate on asylum claims per se.

The "Government" mandates a system that is run by UNHCR trained staff.

Their decision is recommended to the Government. The Government acts accordingly.

This Government has not to my knowledge, ever returned a refugee to a situation where they were tortured or murdered. Even, when the individual concerned had clearly targetted this country as a place of refuge, over several others, that were far more convenient.

However, this Government has expelled thousands of "failed asylum seekers".

None of who are now dead or tortured.

Unless proven otherwise, a pristine 100% record.

Back up your little crusade to sterilise the English language as a means to "debating" the issue, with facts for openers and opinion, second..

by Al Sun Jun 05, 2005 04:57

jane,
All i see is a person attempting to change the debate because the arguement has been lost. My claim in America would be 'bogus, plain and simple. I had no claim to asylum and I knew it. Romanians are the same, there is no reason for claiming asylum, they know it and so do we.

Definition of Bogus: False, counterfeit, nonexistent or fraudulent.
Note nonexistent, thats what their claims are therefore the term stands.

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:59

Jane, the proven fact is that the vast majority of asylum applicant's tell a pack of lies - complete fabrications. In any person's (except Jane) language these are bogus claimants.

Now let’s get back to the subject of this thread - the deportation of these roma asylum seekers... They failed the process; they costed the tax payer a fortune in appeals and still failed. This means that their tales were proven manifestly bogus and complete and utter lies. There is no reason for a claim from Romania. The weather is bad in Donegal sometimes, does that mean I jump on a plane and claim asylum in Canada?

Jane, I think I have made my point.

by iosaf Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:48

i remember our friends on the other side of the border the news / opinion site http://sluggero'toole.com in reaction to Mc dowell's visit to support the SDLP and discuss reactions to armed robberies, quipping -
"you'll never guess who's coming to town, he's taking names and making a list". That was mid april 2005.
Now were we to live (on either side of that border) in states where a "list" made by a minister of justice or those answerable to him, could directly be linked to the threat of violent death, or unjustified incarceration, by any person on such a "hypothetical list" we would have a situation where asylum claims would be justified or at the least arguable from "here". That is why so many people come to countries like Ireland or Northern Ireland, saying "I am on a death list", it would be disingenous to suggest that not a soul in countries like ours, ever thinks "ought you be on a death list?".
I am not seeking to say in this "hyopthetically speaking" comment that all claims of asylum are justified, but rather that strange things happen, in countries which are less "respectful of the rule of law and human rights" than either Ireland or its statelet neighbour where Mc Dowell visited in mid april 2005. It might surprise many of you to know, as you use "going to the USA" as an example that asylum claims are processed in reverse, there are US citizens who claim asylum from the usa, allbeit on the "qt" ( I think "qt" is a technical expression ).

It is not our task, in "indymedia mode" to assess each and every claim for asylum, and it is not something we do, we rather argue for immigration policies which respect human rights and are ethical from ministerial level, to all who are professionally involved in the "processing" of workers, who enter a "limbo" of criminality for generally no other offence than seeking work elsewhere. It is our task "to watch" and "watch carefully" the full track records of those who make and enforce these decisions, for there are much abuse within and without europe.
2 links -
"state of the Union" (european union) on Rumania accesion to the €U (look at the comment photo)
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69555
"day of struggle against internment camps"
(map of all camps in comments)Rumania boasts no less than six camps two for traffic from the east and one for "repatriates" there is no data available for when the "deported" are released.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69199

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 13:06

I'm sick and tired of those who try to make out that anybody who supports legally sound deportations is a Right-Winger. Romania is one of five countries with which Ireland has an accelerated process in place to deal with bogus asylum applications.

The reason we have this process is because these people are generally fakes. You’re life is not in danger in modern Romania, you’re not running from torture or from anything else for that matter.

by io Sun Jun 05, 2005 13:28

I didn't make that out.
I asked you to read a hypothetical comment, and then to goto to 2 links, one on rumania and her history and relation to the EU and the other on internment camps in the eu and the problems of migrant workers.
So don't get "sick of making out people complaining are right wing" with me, i didn't say anything about political opinion, nor do I, my task is to widen awareness of the abuses in the system by those who work in it, and the lack of human rights in the application of laws from Dublin to Rumania from Ceuta to Finland.
go to these links Robert,
thank you.

"state of the Union" (european union) on Rumania accesion to the €U (look at the comment photo)
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69555
"day of struggle against internment camps"
(map of all camps in comments)Rumania boasts no less than six camps two for traffic from the east and one for "repatriates" there is no data available for when the "deported" are released.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=69199
then go here-
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/aug/11migreurop.htm

by Al Sun Jun 05, 2005 15:44

Ìn Ireland it is illegal to enter the state without a valid reason, therefore any person that does so makes themselves into criminals not the state.
Too much time, effort and money is spent on people who are abusing a system for selfious reasons. This money could be better invested in housing, tackling drug abuse, building local amenities, etc so as far as Im concerned these people signed away their rights under either Romanian or Irish laws. The turned their back on their own nation and attempted to burden and abuse ours. For gods sake, they lieft their child here.
As for Americans, I am unaware of any American being deported after a sailed asylum attempt. There is more thna one way to enter a country you know.

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 15:51

You say that you argue for immigration policies which respect human rights. Our asylum policy respects human rights, that family didn’t respect their child’s rights by leaving him here. In general Roma asylum seekers go through due process and are then found to have made bogus asylum claims; they do this all over Europe. Ireland should not feel morally responsible just because there is a camp for repatriated Roma's in Romania. There wouldn’t be one if they came here legally.

by curious Sun Jun 05, 2005 17:53

'there is a camp for repatriated Roma's in Romania.'

care to point to some links about this?

If this is true, this should tell ya a thing or three about Romania, no?

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 18:19

This was a claim made by Iosaf . "Romania boasts no less than six camps two for traffic from the east and one for "repatriates" there is no data available for when the "deported" are released."

Well if they can't manage their own people, there is no way the majority of Irish people want to. The system has been abused enough.

by Jane - LY pers capacity Sun Jun 05, 2005 19:53

Eh, I'm just going to post once more on this, because after that I'll be afk for five days, and plus I don't really see us agreeing or convincing each other of our respective positions.

"Jane, the proven fact is that the vast majority of asylum applicant's tell a pack of lies - complete fabrications."

Nice strong language, but who has proven these facts? It certainly wasn't the state or its organs. A failed asylum application is never stamped with "Dirty Liar", but your broad categorisation of failed attempts under this heading does serious damage to those who have made genuine attempts to get asylum here but have been denied.

"I think you are trying to make the claim that this Government turns down genuine asylum applicants and therefore, the term "bogus" is unjustified."

No, that's not my argument at all. Note that I never tried to categorically state that there are people who have fulfilled all the requirements for asylum but have nevertheless been denied by the state (although this may be the case, willl we ever really know for certain?). I'm simply saying that if someone does not have enough of a case for asylum, it does not necessarily mean they are lying, and it does not make their claim automatically bogus. You may be of the strong opinion that some are, but you can't prove that they all are, unless you know the ins and outs of every country and every individual case, which we don't and never will.

I don't really understand your big problem with this. Certainly, we can say with authority that all applications which are rejected by the state are indeed failed. But we are not judge, jury and executioner, we are merely individuals, and so we cannot say with similar conviction that all these claims are not only failed but similarly bogus, if not even the state will say that! To do so is highly unfair and dangerous, portraying a negative image of all asylum seekers who have had their cases rejected which can put them in very dangerous situations. I could cite examples but in respect of people's privacy I won't do that here.

Why so determined to be allowed use the term "bogus"? These applications have all failed, the people won't be allowed to remain in the country, mission accomplished for you isn't it? Why insist on using the blanket and very negative term which unfairly categorises people who indeed have failed to present sufficient grounds for asylum in the eyes of the state, but have been truthful in their attempt? Or don't you think it's possible for such people to exist?

I'll close this with an analogy that I hope will help make my point clear. You, and ten other people apply for a job, and Person X gets the job. It is discovered that in the course of his application, Person Y told lies on his CV. Is it fair then to brand the rest of the applicants as cheaters, and bogus applicants? Their applications weren't deemed good enough for the job, but they had still been honest. If this was you, and you were being branded a bogus fraud because of Person Y's actions, would you still be so convinced that this is only a petty argument about language that has no impact on real people's lives?

Anyway, it's been fun.

by curiouser Sun Jun 05, 2005 20:03

thanx for info.

'Well if they can't manage their own people'

jeeez! would you listen to yourself some time? 'own people'?

If the camps are for Roma from the east, then wouldn't be their 'own people' - not that it would justify anything. And for the 'repatriates' - Romania is putting Romanian Roma into camps?

Sounds like Romanian govt is 'managing their own people' - reminiscent of.....???

as i said before
If this is true, this should tell ya a thing or three about Romania, no?

EU Directive 66, move 'em outside the EuroPale, says Anakin

by Al Sun Jun 05, 2005 21:33

Jane,
Why are you so bothered by the term 'bogus'? the term can be used for a variety of applications that were rejected. they lied, they had no proof, etc. The term does not put any person in danger, how could it? Please, be sensible.
Your comparison to a job is so flawed it barely deserves comment however let me point some flaws out to you. A job application is a competition with the best qualified person gaining the 1 spot. Asylum is not, you have 1000 asylum applications, 1000 are genuine, 1000 will get it. It wont go to the 1 that had the best claim.
As for Romania, the fact that camps exist is not of any concern, these are people 'claiming' to be Romanian, more often than not they have no ID of any kind. I come across dozens of people in work either as witnesses or prisoners who will claim to be an EU nationality when they arent. How can I or anyone prove they arent? Unless they are unable to speak their 'own' language (which happens).
Furthermore, I fail to see why nations are constantly blamed for the troubles of people. We are all grown adults, part of being an adult means decisions and responsibility for our own actions. A guy robbed a bank but its not his fault. A person attepts to abuse a system but its not their fault. A person takes drugs but its not their fault. For gods sake not everything can be blamed on others, what happened to personal responsibility?
Lastly, the deportation of parents of Irish children is sad and regretable for the child but lets remember that this was a parent that had a child purely to obtain permission to remain. Shouldnt love and desire to be a parent not be high on the reasons? How many false marraiges take place every year?
I have little sympathy for failed asylum seekers.

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 21:41

Jane,

I will say one thing, you are a fantastic debater. You could paint Bin Laden as an innocent peasant. You really don't want people to use the term bogus do you. Interesting Analogy, the only problem with it is - 10 out of the 10 job seekers would have lied if they were Roma asylum seekers. I repeat again – there is no reason to seek asylum from Romania. The Roma knowingly and cynically abuse the process to make false and groundless claims, this ruins the process for genuine cases from other parts of the world.

One other quick note for curiouser - the Roma who are deported to Romania are from that Country - that is why I used the term – “their own people". We wouldn't be deporting them back to Romania if they didn't come from there.

by Al Sun Jun 05, 2005 21:56

You could paint Bin Laden as an innocent peasant

Prove he isnt? I havent seen due process or justice yet! ;)

by Darragh Ó Bradáin - Labour Youth UCD Sun Jun 05, 2005 22:10

Robert, could you please tell us all what the source of your information is, because for all we know you're just making up random "information" to further your argument. You seem pretty sure of yourself, so prove your points please.

A link to a website or a reference to a document of some sort would be nice.

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 22:27

Re Last Comment....the information I have given is public domain and easily acquired. Contact the Dept of Justice and get the facts direct from the horse's mouth. I put a post with a link to a PDF document only to have it deleted here on Indymedia. I'll be arsed if I am going to do that again. Some people can't accept when they have lost an arguement.

I can only say, Labour will never get into power with its caring policy towards bogus asylum seekers. Genuine asylum seekers do not come from Romania in this day and age. A strong stand against this kind of abuse is required and Mc Dowell is the right man for this.

by robert (lying about the pdf) Sun Jun 05, 2005 22:55

"In 1920, Roma were singled out as Lebensunwertes Leben or “lives unworthy of life,” in a study by that name published by psychiatrist Karl Binding and magistrate Alfred Hoche,7 a work which had a profound effect upon Adolf Hitler and the theories of which became fundamental to the formulation of his later race policies of exterminating genetically ‘‘worthless life.” During the 1920s, Romanies in German-speaking land were being routinely photographed and fingerprinted, and by the end of that decade, containment camps had already been built for them in Germany."

Only editors can publish PDFs on Indymedia ireland you LIAR. Anyone who doubts me can try publishing one themselves.

by Robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 22:59

"The situation in Romania is the most severe. Not only has there been a sharp increase in the incidents of mob attacks on Romanies, but grim evidence is coming to light that the Romani minority was being prepared for a social role similar to that which it had during the five and a half centuries of Romanian slavery. The increase in hostility followed closely the collapse of Ceaus¸escu’s regime at the end of 1989:
 
Civilian guides (typically Securitate members) suddenly appeared at the doorsteps of Gypsy homes. Men who were found inside were subjected to rapid executions; some of them had their heads cut off with a single swipe of the sickle Women were beaten and raped in front of their horrified children and parents, who were themselves tortured. Some men and women were tied by the hands and feet and lifted onto trucks that took them to unknown destinations. Many never returned . . . The vast majority of Gypsies live in miserable conditions, suffering from want and even famine. Much has been made in the West of the appalling conditions of the Romanian orphanages and of Ceaus¸escu’s harsh anti-abortion law. What is generally left untold is that Gypsies constitute the majority of the children . . . By denouncing the Gypsies as popor de culoare (people of color) and as Asians or non-Europeans, the government is attempting to substitute racial ideology for Marxist class idelogy.43
 
Attacks on Romanies have been reported from all parts of Romania. In April, 1991, twenty-six Romani homes in the villages of Bolentin Plaj and Bolentin Xar, some 15-20 miles southeast of Bucharest, were burned with gasoline bombs or collapsed by means of steet cables pulled by bulldozers. The inhabitants were driven into the woods surrounding the villages and warned never to return. When it was suggested at a meeting between the writer and Messrs. Gavrilescu and Diaconu of the office of Human Rights and Freedoms in Bucharest on August 13th, 1991 that contemporary Romanian racist attitudes had their roots in the centuries of Gypsy slavery in Romania, and that clear parallels existed between the Romani and the African American situations, and the kind of discrimination directed at both peoples, the response was that slavery ended in the 19th century and could therefore have no contemporary relevance. It was also made abundantly clear that any problems involving Roma and violence were the Roma’s own fault, and that as long as Roma maintained their place in society, there was usually little trouble.  Mr. Gavrilescu provided The Romani Union with a copy of the official statement on disturbances involving Roma, prepared by Nicolae Dascalu, Head of the Romanian Delegation of Experts on National Minorities, which contained references to the “criminal nature” of the Gypsy people, and the “right of the Romanian people to inflict punishment” in retribution. It also stated, in discussing terrorist outbreaks initiated by Romanians, that “their immediate cause was always the committing of serious crime by a Gypsy.” Despite the widespread occurrence of anti-Rom pogroms in such towns as Basarab, Biga Ion, Bucharest, Carpenis¸, Casin, Cilnic, Cuza Voda, Lunga, Huedin, Mihai Kogalniceau, Orezeni, Plaias¸ii de Sus, Reghin, Romanes¸ti, Seica Mare, Tirgu Mures¸, Turu Lung and Virghis, resulting in beatings, maimings, rapes and murders, to date only one non-Romani has been charged, although hundreds of Romanies have been arrested during the past year.43 The San Francisco Chronicle for December 12th, 1993 carried the headline “Romanian Gypsies Being Terrorized,” and included a story which began “An orgy of mob lynching and house-burning—with police collaboration—has turned into something more sinister for Romania’s hated Gypsies: the beginnings of a nationwide campaign of terror launched by groups modeling themselves on the Ku Klux Klan. ‘We are many and very determined.  We will skin the Gypsies soon.  We will smash their teeth and cut off their noses. The first will be hanged’ said one Romanian.”  At the same time The New York Times carried an article entitled “To the Gypsies [in Romania], Death is a Neighbor, and So Is This Implacable Hatred.”  A woman commented to one human rights organization investigating the murders “Why call it murder? Murder is when you kill human beings.”

by alwatch Sun Jun 05, 2005 23:19

Nice PC Plod my bollocks

DOJ works by quota and you know it because you are trying hand over fist to hide it.

In ireland approx 800-900 applications out of every 1000 will be rejected as a matter of course whether they are genuine or not. You and big swinging mickey are creating 'bogus' asylum seekers and then demonising them.

When I see how closely your posts resemble the talking points of DOJ and DOAT I really know you are a cutout paid to post here.

People are concerned in this country that employers are using cheap immigrant labour to undercut wages and conditions.

The government knows this is happening and through an emasculated inspection regime are facilitating employers in this.

The last thing the 'liberalisers' want is anger over declining working conditions to rebound on them so they set up a scapegoat (nigerians and romania gypsies) and with barely concealed racism direct peoples anger there instead of where it belongs - at the feet of business and government.

It is no concidence that problems with slavelike rates of pay at gama and the port tunnel are surfacing at the same time as mcdowell and his race baiting and midnight deportations to Nigeria and romania reach a peak of dangerous hysteria.

Now Michael and/or your flunkies - go somewhere else and divide and conquer there.

by robert Sun Jun 05, 2005 23:23

This is a shorthand reference - Name of Book, Pages extracted, date published.

You are a cheap lazy lying dissembler.

The article is copyright of the writer not copyright the 'roma'. The book is called roma.

by Pseudonom Mon Jun 06, 2005 02:51

You know, he/she has a point about Roma and their experiences.

Just a shame it's 14 years out of date.

Though not as dated the second world war to be fair.

And doesn't that feel like yesterday too?

by Robert Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:49

Hi Pseudonom,

These left-wingers want everyone to be given asylum here, it doesn't matter how flawed and out of date the reason. There should be no asylum for these fraudsters. Did you notice the way the last guy ignored my comment about the Dublin Convention? Asylum seekers are supposed to seek refuge in the first safe Country they come across - that isn't Ireland.

McDowell is right, these people should be put on the next plane home, unfortunately because of a an out of date UN convention we are obliged to listen to their tales and then deport them after 3 months wasting Irish taxpayers money.

If you don’t agree with these fools – you’re a troll.

by Al Mon Jun 06, 2005 13:15

I want to thank dear old Alwatch, first for his nice comments about myself and secondly for using a link which states Ireland is a great country for immigrants. I strongly suggest everyone reads the views expressed by The Jesuit centre for faith and justice. Its over 6 years old but still a great read. For those too lazy to read the whole thing let me show you some clips:

"There is no doubt that the number of asylum seekers coming to Ireland has increased in the last couple of years, because:
1. The social welfare regime in Britain is less generous towards refugees than it used to be;

2. Asylum seekers in some EU countries have even fewer rights than in Ireland, and there have been curbs on immigration in some of these countries in recent years.

3. The Irish Refugee Act of 1996 was perceived as generous, particularly the inclusion, as grounds for seeking asylum, of persecution for "membership of a particular social group". " - Thats right Alwatch, we are generous and kind to refugees.

In 1994 more than half of the applications were withdrawn and out of the remaining applications 39 were rejected, 34 accepted and 67 rejected but granted permission to remain in Ireland. Thats right, the majority were rejected but allowed stay.

How about this quote? "For this reason UNHCR are concerned that the status of genuine asylum seekers might be undermined by a large number of 'manifestly unfounded' applications and they are supportive of departmental decisions to turn down such applications."

Alwatch, did you read your own link? Its out of date now but actually backs myself and Robert up completely.
BTW, I found absolutely no statement in there claiming a set limit on accepting refugees. Can you show me a link that does so? I doubt it because its not true.

Alwatch, your last comment really was the work of a spoilt brat used to getting his own way wasnt it?

by Robert Mon Jun 06, 2005 14:08

Al Watch,

Regarding your comment "In Ireland approx 800-900 applications out of every 1000 will be rejected as a matter of course whether they are genuine or not."

That is the worst load of rubbish I have ever heard. All cases are judged on their merits. You are a left-winger who can't accept democracy. You probably still haven't recovered from the shock 80 % yes vote in the citizenship referendum. Now you can't accept that most people view roma asylum applications as bogus - even when the previous posters have provided proof as to the fairness of our asylum system.

By the way, I agree with the earlier guys who mentioned RAR would be up in arms if these were Nigerian's getting deported. Game, set and match!

by Al Mon Jun 06, 2005 14:11

Robert,
He only responds to me (in fact he only posts because of me) so save your time and attempt discussion with people that are capable of debate.

by Robert Mon Jun 06, 2005 15:28

Al,

I think we have won; the left-wingers have been soundly defeated. Oh what am I saying, we haven't, in fact, we've lost over a billion euro's to bogus asylum seekers. The abuse of our nation's wealth has been incredible. These fund's could have been put into health care, housing etc. It’s only by chance that we have a very good Minister for Justice.

by Al Mon Jun 06, 2005 16:52

"It’s only by chance that we have a very good Minister for Justice." Actually I wouldnt be his number 1 fan. he could be a great minister but I find he tends to pick fights rather than work with people.
But yeah we win. This must be a first.

by passer-by Mon Jun 06, 2005 18:04

"But yeah we win. This must be a first."

So you normally lose the argument? Yeah i thought so. Good to hear it straight out of the horse's mouth though.

by Sherlock Holmes Mon Jun 06, 2005 18:55

Here we go again. An anti deportation post goes up and attracts racists and gobshites like moths to a flame.

Since you believe Roamania is safe for Roma, here is the US State departments report on the country for 2004. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41703.htm

Heres the amnesty international report on Romania http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/rom-summary-eng

For general info here is the link to the European Roma Rights Centre
http://www.errc.org/

From these links you can see that Romania is not a safe place to live if you are Roma.

Robert all you are doing is praising an incompetent Minister for Justice. It's all we can expect from the joke that is the freedom institute. You parrot on about left wingers and right wingers like a little child and then post saying you have won. Nobody pays any attention to your little bloggspot thats why you keep posting links to it from here. You get your ideas from basic college text books and now the ICP worryingly. You talk about the citizenship referendum as if 80% of Ireland are against immigration, not only is this a lie but you then say that a loophole existed. This is blatant historical revisionism.

The poster who said that the UNHCR train the staff. Publish your links please. This is a complete lie. You wouldn't be the same poster who previously denied that it is the minister who deports people.? Once the legislation was then published on the thread and still went on to deny it are you?.
The poster who in the last thread they published on was again shown to be lying?

Al, perhaps you should be more interested in dealing with the massive problem of racism in the police force here. It has gotten to such a bad stage that they had to hire the same PR company that the London Metropolitan police used after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. What about the recent report published? It didn't paint you "boys" in too good a light.

The points are clear. Asylum seekers should be allowed to work while their applications are being processed. This will stop people calling them spongers. The asylum process should be removed completely from the hands of the Minister for Justice and put into the hands of a body such as the Human Rights Commission. The large number of rejections of asylum seekers is larger than any other country in western Europe. This is due to Institutional racism and nothing else.

Also Robert Turkey will also be entering the EU soon. Do you think it is a safe country?

by Devil Dog Mon Jun 06, 2005 19:17

From the AI report:

"Assaults on the Roma

Many victims of police ill-treatment and unlawful use of firearms were Roma. Roma also suffered at the hands of security guards who were registered with the local authorities.
According to the European Roma Rights Center and the “Tumende” Association of Vale Jiului, a local Romani organization, on 11 March Bela Dodi died after being beaten by private security guards at the Coroieşti mine in Vulcan, Hunedoara county. Bela Dodi and four other Romani men were collecting scrap metal when private security guards assaulted them. Bela Dodi, who was trying to run away, fell, hit his head, and died. The four other men were taken to a hospital for treatment for their injuries. In November 2003 employees of the same private security firm had reportedly beaten Olga David, a 42-year-old Romani woman, who subsequently died from her injuries."

Hmmm, some isolated incidents, uncorroborated by independent witnesses - hardly Birkenau Mark II. I'm sure you could find some Pavee Point Rep with similar tales about Irish "travelers".

Let the HRC make the decisions? Great idea, more powers ceded to an unelected QUANGO with an overweening left-wing agenda - I thought the Equality Commission was bad enough...

Sherlock, your forensic skills are slipping - do you have any evidence, any at all that there is "institutional racism" in the Irish asylum process? Maybe you should get your buddy DOCTOR Watson to help out.

Do you accept that a large numbers of asylum seekers who come are are in no danger of being persecuted and are simply chancing their arm to avail of the benefits on offer? What do you think should happen to claimants whose claims have been rejected? Or should we just let anyone who claims asylum in, irrespective of the case's merits?

I'm just waiting for the shrill self-righteous cries of "racist troll: - so much easier than actually answering my points.

by Robert Mon Jun 06, 2005 20:45

I agree with his comments - well said.

by sherlock holmes Mon Jun 06, 2005 21:33

Devil Dog, you agree with State murder. What sort of authority do you think you possibly have to talk about Human rights, you have none. The links I published were from very different sources. The US State department and Amnesty International both publish similar findings, what more do you want? Video evidence. Why would the US State department and Amnesty both lie?

As for your comments on Irish travellers, we all know they live comfortable lives with no persecution what so ever. They all have plasma screen TV's, live in mansions and suffer no persecution what so ever. Perhaps it is time you pulled your head out of your ass.

The asylum process should be removed to a body SUCH AS the HRC. Read what I said. As for the HRC having a left wing agenda how ridiculous! Maurice Manning is a Fine Gael member and a former senator for that party. A bolshevik alright. Any more ridiculous claims?

Proof of Institutional racism has come in the report I mentioned of the Guardai. If you read what I said the high rejection rate is down to Institutional racism and nothing else. However knowing you, you would probably like to execute all asylum seekers.

My beliefs are in an open border, how much clearer would you like me to put it for you. Some asylum seekers are fleeing economic persecution, but economic persecution is still a form of persecution. No borders, No deportations, No State murders or State persecution either Devil Dog. You really are an absolute fool if you think people come over here to "avail" of €19.10 a week benefit. Again if you read what I wrote asylum seekers should be allowed to work so that people like you couldn't call them spongers.

Robert thank you for that irrelevant post. We are all very interested in what you and the freedom institute have to say on everything. The fact that you agree with what Devil Dog despite the evidence shows how laughable you truly are.

Devil Dog I await a further post from you ignoring all the evidence and attempting to re write what i said, and from your publishing of more ridiculous points of view . I look forward to more foolish comments from you too Robert and from the joke that is the Freedom Institute.

by Devil Dog aka Prof Moriarty Mon Jun 06, 2005 22:02

Do you also post as EEEEKKK or R.Isible? One of those has also accused me of supporting "state murder", on what basis I really don't know - care to elaborate?

Nothing wrong with the links you posted except that they don't really portray a picture of widespread, systematic persecution against "Roma". But then again, you don't actually see the need for any persecution at all, do you?

"My beliefs are in an open border, how much clearer would you like me to put it for you. "

Thanks, that's more than clear enough - only problem is, it's the first time you've come out and said that.

I'm not sure what the monetary amount asylum seekers get each week actually is - however, can you list the other benefits they get, such as accomodation, etc?

Re Irish "travellers", as I understand you, they could probably claim asylum overseas!

One specific question re this group will suffice - do you think that the vehicles "travelers" drive are all taxed and insured? Or do you think they shouln't have to deal with such state persecution, like the "settled" population?

As for the "institutional racism", if it's in the Gardai, how is it in the asylum process as the GS aren't involved in any substantive part of that process? Yes, I read what you said, I just think it's balderdash.

Can you provide a link to this report alleging racism in the GS?

"However knowing you, you would probably like to execute all asylum seekers."

A very reasonable point, you could certainly infer that from my posts...then again, you don't know me, do you?

Ignoring evidence and rewriting what others post? Physician, heal thyself...

Congrats though, you merely deign to dismiss my posts as "ridiculous" without actually addressing my points...at least you didn't call me a "racist troll".

by Robert Mon Jun 06, 2005 22:24

Sherlock,

You certainly have weak investigative skills, I am not involved in the Freedom Institute in any shape or form - clear enough denial for you??? I do involve myself in certain organisations - but not that one. In our democracy, you are entitled to your beliefs, however they will never become a reality. They are mere aspirations. There is no way our government or indeed the EU will ever allow an open border policy which would encourage bogus asylum applications. The electorate of this Country would never allow a "no deportations" policy. If bogus asylum seekers could make a claim in this state without fear of deportation, we would be submerged with claims. This would cost this Country a fortune. Allowing Asylum seekers to work won't happen, that is what the work permit scheme is for.

On the subject of Immigration policy, I believe the EU should make it easier for people in poorer parts of the world to obtain work permits. Generally, these people are economic migrants –not refugees. This is the primary reason why people chance their arm here and in the other rich Countries of the EU.

Good Evening Mr Holmes!

by eeeekkkk Tue Jun 07, 2005 00:55

And the only item there is a paen to MOJ??????? http://asylumireland.blogspot.com/ My suggestons for your blogging: So ask the boss if he is going to take Mr. McBrearty up on his offer of a public debate. Ask him to publish redacted versions of all the decisions he makes on asylum applications. Ask him to allow human rights monitors at border points where asylum applicants are routinely turned away en masse without being allowed the opportunity to claim asylum. He likes his secrets and unlike me he knows who you are and who I am. He makes sure our data is backed up for three years. I hope someone is backing up his data. He's also the kind of person who in a sticky situation might rather innocent people being locked up to garda authority being questioned. Maybe they have something on him. 'Aiding and abetting racism' ?, 'Hate sppech'? 'Undermining Geneva Convention'? How about a one off asbo for Michael? ;-)

by alwatch Tue Jun 07, 2005 01:15

Does that by definition make me 'bogus' by definition? 7,000,000 dying from poverty in Africa per year. Nothing like WW2? There is a pattern of pogroms against Roma in Romania since he fall of the Berlin Wall and you laugh?

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 15:48

For your attention: "a refugee" means a person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. By the way, if you are that stupid, that comes from the Refugee Act 1996 - considered generous by the UNHCR.

This does not have anything to do with the poverty problem in Africa. This does not make Nigerians for example - genuine asylum seekers. Ireland might be a rich nation, we wouldn't be if we were to look after all the problems of the world. The definition of a refugee has been clearly explained to you - do some research you ill informed fool.

by Sherlock Holmes Tue Jun 07, 2005 18:29

The basis for this was on a previous post were you said you agreed with state executions. If this position has changed, my apologies, if not then it stands. Also I am not eeeekk or Risible.

The posts published were only samples of abuse. Their are more cases of abuse that weren't in those reports. However you probably don't even believe the cases that were published.

Asylum seekers also get accommodation and medical cards. Accommodation is generally in a hostel crammed into a room with many others. The hostels are privately owned and as a result are overcharged. A lot of the hostels are currently well below basic standards. Integrating Ireland are beginning a campaign around this issue as are Residents Against Racism and I believe a political party will be picking the issue up aswell. As for the medical card, once asylum seekers work they can be means tested like the rest of us.

You are also missing the point. Nobody should be forced into claiming asylum. A much better method would be to deal with the persecution that travellers face in this country. Perhaps that would be a tactic you believe in, persecute them until they go away. This of course goes for all those applying for asylum, if we deal with the reasons why they are applying for asylum then they wont have to leave their country of origin.

"One specific question re this group will suffice - do you think that the vehicles "travelers" drive are all taxed and insured? Or do you think they shouln't have to deal with such state persecution, like the "settled" population?"

If you honestly believe that this is the reason why travellers suffer persecution then you really are an utter fool.

Gardai are heavily involved in the asylum process. The guards are involved from point of entry and they are also involved in the deportations. Some of them are also involved in what can only be described as harrasment of asylum seekers and other foreign nationals.
The report was the Ionnan report http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0401/3043546574HM9GARDAAUDIT.html

Robert,

I will campaign for my beliefs as you will yours. An open border would mean that their would be no asylum applications as people could come and go as they please. You shouldn't try and forecast what a government will and will not do, but I will campaign for short term aims also such as the right to work and other such campaigns. Asylum seekers used to have the right to work. This right was then not renewed. You should of course have known this since your such an expert on asylum (such an expert that you set up a bloggspot). As for the work permit system, it is a complete shambles and needs to be completely overhauled. It is nothing more then bonded slavery for many migrant workers.

P.S. apologies for saying you were a member of the freedom institute. My mistake.

by Al Tue Jun 07, 2005 18:51

"Does that by definition make me 'bogus' by definition?" - What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you refering to the definition as per a dictionary?
"7,000,000 dying from poverty in Africa per year." - Absoluytely nothing to do with asylum seekers.
"Nothing like WW2?" - A strange comment, please define, WW2 was a war. Whats the reason for this comment? The Jews and concentration camps? the Romas are being systematically herded and wiped out? I dont think so, if they were they wouldnt be landing in Ireland every day.
"There is a pattern of pogroms against Roma in Romania since he fall of the Berlin Wall and you laugh?" - Where did I laugh? What kind of programs? Presuming thats the word you were attempting to type. Are they all being brainwashed? Its funny but I have spoken to dozens of Romas and Romanians and none of them ever mentioned genocide or any other 'programs'.

Eeeeek,
Is that English you were typing? What Garda brutality are you talking about? We dont have any dealings with asylum applications. What en-masse refusals? People sneaking into Ireland dont turn up in first class of a British airways flight and then walk through customs. They are smuggled, exactlly what evidence have you got for any of your claims?

Sherlock,
"live in mansions" - Actually I dont think they could really be classed as travelers then.
As for the report on the 'Guardai' (thats spelt either Guards or Gardai you fool) You havent identified any report dealing with racism within the Gardai. You made a claim towards 'a report' however declined to name it, please do so. If its to do with Donegal then I might add that had nothing to do with racism. As for PR, please name the company or any evidence whatsover of this.
Blanket gossip, is that the best you can do? Oh wait, the Americans said it. Funny but is that the same Americans that cant be trusted? that claimed WMD in Iraq so they could go after oil? Guantanimo bay? The same Americans that are commiting war crimes and should be arrested in Shannon? (Not my opinions but statements frequently made on Indymedia)

I will agree on one thing, I believe they should be allowed work. This may or may not happen but I believe it would solve a lot of the problems experienced on both sides of the story.

by eeekkkk Tue Jun 07, 2005 19:19

Lies - who is first point of contact for asylum seekers here? Gardai at points of entry. Jesus I've myself seen gardai on Dublin belfast train with Immigration challenging fellow passengers. Asylum seekers when they make it in are routinely given choice of going to garda Stations or GNIB.

by Devil dog Tue Jun 07, 2005 19:24

Gardai have any role in deciding whether to uphold or reject an application, including an appeal against initial rejection?

by Al Tue Jun 07, 2005 19:32

Eeeeek,
No. Customs and 'Garda checkpoints' are not on any trains. I dont see where that came from, they are at airports however as this is passport control I presume they refuse anyone who is unable to provide a passport. Infact I know they do.
there are a lot of intelligent people posting here, Eeeeek, you are not one of them.

by PseudoNom Tue Jun 07, 2005 19:43

How does the Belfast train connect with Nigeria or Romania?

by Pol Tue Jun 07, 2005 19:56

Listen you shower of rascist pin-heads. The Roma are under perpetual abuse in Eastern Europe. The following link describes just that:http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/stinkin.htm

by Sherlock Holmes Tue Jun 07, 2005 19:56

I don't think you should try and insult people's spelling now. People tend to publish when they have a few stolen moments and often spelling is bad. You certainly shouldn't especially when your own is shite. Travellers is spelt with two l's you "fool"

As for travellers living in mansions I was being sarcastic. Of course they don't live in mansions. That was one of the points I was trying to make. You'll never make detective Al.

If you read my post it is the Ionnan report. I also posted a link to an article about it in which both McDowell and Conroy made statements.

Also using the State department's report is for people who try and portray human rights violations in other country's as a left wing lie. I also published the Amnesty report as further proof.

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 20:24

I'm a republican, and am not very fond of the idea of a Garda passport check on the train. Having said that, I can see the logic from the governments point of view.

It has been far too easy for bogus asylum seekers to come down to Dublin via Belfast and Larne. And if Gardai were on the train, it would allow us to stop them from claiming asylum here. It wouldn't do any harm if there was proper passport control on the ferries up North, this is how most get to the North.

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 20:26

How can a Roma or indeed a Nigerian make a claim in this state, without passing through a country signed up to the Dublin Convention? We shouldn't really be entertaining these claims.

by + Tue Jun 07, 2005 20:35

coz if we aren't, and surely we'd notice, a referendum or something like it says in the constitution, then we'd have to use schengen, hey! there's a thing, we're not signed up to that either... hmm what little regulations do they use?
"marry a nigerian today"

by Pol Tue Jun 07, 2005 20:36

You people are scum. People fleeing from any kind of opression can and should come here to build thier lives. There is no 'threat' from them. Ireland's culture died the day we all started speaking English, so we have no precious history to cherish and protect. Even if we did, we should not damn people to a hell of opression owing to our xenophobia, ignorant self-righteousness and snobbery. Just because we were born on this island it does not give us the right to tell others where to go, where to stay or how to live. People should come here to get a life just as the Irish have been going elsewhere for the same reasons for centuries.

by eeekkkk Tue Jun 07, 2005 20:56

You are wrong al - that or blatantly lying again - I travel once per week between connolly and belfast central and there most assuredly are garda/immigration checks on the train at Dundalk beside the harp lager factory. The train stops and they board and in pairs garda/immigration make their way the length of the train challenging people / asking for id / passports visas etc.

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 20:58

We are not scum, we just don't wish our welfare, health and every other organ of the state to be abuse by groundless claims of oppression etc. The excuse's these economic migrants come up with are a joke. I have every confidence the government will continue its policy of putting an end to this nonsense.

People don't seem to realise something, all these bogus claims destroy the claims of the genuine. (Although unfortunately there appears to be very few genuine asylum seekers)

by eeekkk Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:08

As a republican (ha ha ha - pull the other one) would you say Irish Immigrants to the US during the famine were fleeing opression or were their excuses all 'just a joke'?

by Pol Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:09

I live in a place (Northern Ireland) where I was considered a papist aborigine from birth. That place has a history of the kind of mealy-mouthed bigotry typified by bastards like you. You fucking people, with your pissy 'legal' excuses for foisting the worst on people ARE the scum of the Earth. If the choice is between people fleeing opression at the expense of your taxes, or them dying... fuck your taxes.
No-one, me, them, or anyone else deserves to be born at a disadvantage caused by greedy, selfish, ignorant, arrogant little bastrads like you.
You complain of MY abuse? No, No... MY abuse came at being beaten up in the street for being a 'fuckin fenian'. MY abuse was hearing how my uncle was lifted off the street at the age of 14 and being beaten all night in an RUC barracks and then being returned home by being thrown out of the back of a moving Landrover outside his house. He was drenched in blood and it was feared he would be paralysed. MY abuse is my father being called a 'terrorist' by Protestant work'mates' in Belfast and ostracised, despite the fact he was not. MY abuse is living in a country that considered me expendable, unwanted chaff. That is MY abuse, not some swear-words.
You and your kind have made this world awful for so many. To hell with the lot of you.

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:12

Eeek,

Based on the dumb present and previous comments from you.....you don't deserve a response. Let's take in the whole world you crazy left-winger. These people should be treated like the criminals they are. If I tell a lie to a Garda, I can be charged.

by eeekkkk Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:13

You and 'al'?
PD's?
Republicans?
White nationalists?
ICP?

All of the above?

Or just the people sitting round your 'puter with you?

Or your multiple online identities that get short circuted now and then?

by eeekkkk Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:19

'These people should be treated like the criminals they are'

Show me the statute that makes it against the law to apply for asylum and be turned down for same in Ireland.

"If I tell a lie to a Garda, I can be charged"

Crime of telling a lie to a garda? Wrong name and address maybe but telling a guard a lie is a crime? No such law.

Trollomaniac with no compunction to stick to any sort of truth - keep changing any goalposts that suits to keep conversations unproductive - here to disrupt - al's evil twin

Lies lies lies

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:26

eeek,

Why did you forget to take your medication, you are stir fry mental. We are all different people, let me assure you of that. You think the whole world thinks like you - wrong!

The majority of the people in Ireland stopped the abuse of our citizenship system. Your people tried to stop it? What was the result???? 80 % in favour. So your kind of left-wing outlook got you really far that time. The citizenship ref was only the start of the programme.

People will think twice about making false claims here in the future.

We will not have our country abused by bogus asylum seekers. Genuine people fleeing REAL oppression deserve the protection of our state - not fraudsters!

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:30

Kind of like that name....thanks!

by Devil Dog Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:32

Do you accept that many people claiming asylum are actiually in no danger of persecution at all? Or do you believe in "open borders" like our consulting detective friend? If so, do we set any limits whatsoever to people coming here? Do we keep a record of them?

by eeekkk Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:43

What and whose programme is that 'robert'?

by Pol Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:46

If the 'we' who should give the nod to whether or not someone - living in conditions of social or economic distress - arethe people on this page, who seem to live in a state of mindless fear at the thought of foreigners turning up, then a lot of people are doomed. All I have seen here are cheap cracks at the most down-trodden.
Ireland's economic boom time (which will go bust sooner or later leaving us to go abroad again) attracts poor people from abroad because they see a better chance of a life here. Fine.
I don't mind seeing them come here. Those immigrants I meet with work. In fact, like those Turkish indentured servants with GAMA, they do work that is more important than the work of their critics. Are their critics building the Dublin port tunnel? Or cleaning streets? Or ensuring the food is on the supermarket shelves?
The basis for this anti-immigrant attitude is simple: bigotry.
The referendum was fuelled by it (not deeply thought out economic theses concerning future fiscal projections), the current 'debate' is infested with it, and I can see it aiding the repatriation of people back to places where the poor sods are doomed.
If you haven't already done so, just take the time to check out the link I posted concerning the abuse of Roma populations in Eastern Europe, pertinent here as the deported family were Roma themselves.
Are you really prepared, in your heart of hearts, to put someone's life at a lower value than the scraps of the welfare system?

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 21:58

Listen,

The only problem I have with these people is, they are manifestly bogus. Just because their economic situation is not great at home - doesn't entitle them to the fruit's of my labour. I've said this before, bogus asylum seekers exploit the good, the naïve, the emotional and the very very stupid in this country.

Ireland's boom would end sooner if we didn't have a programme of measures in place to deal with bogus claims. Schemes like the acceleration process are beginning to bear fruit.

I welcome REAL GENUINE asylum seekers.

by Pol Tue Jun 07, 2005 22:09

I understand what your saying, but to follow your logic through no-one should get the 'fruits of your labour'. And in that case, you have no rights to the fruits of anyone else's labour.
If that is how the world worked everyone would be at a loss.
Furthermore, the welfare system - in the North at least - is not an easy ride. The money isn't enought to keep body and soul together and the encouragement of McJobs and other precarious livelihoods are promoted over the creation of real employment.
This is going to be my last post here for today, but as a parting shot, economic distress is caused by wealthy counties (like us) and its effect, as anyone who has ever experienced poverty will know, is akin to opression.
It's terrible to think that in a country as affluent as this, proppped up artificially by the money of the EU and World Bank, we can see fit to turn people away. With our history we should act with greater decency.

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 22:19

We have one of the fairest asylum system's in the world. This does not mean we have an open door policy. Genuine people can come here in the knowledge they will be given refuge in our state. How many Romas or Nigerians can prove they are victims of torture - very few indeed!

Bogus asylum seekers should be deported without the right to appeal!

by eeeeeekkkkkk Tue Jun 07, 2005 23:32

Support the guy who works on appeals tribunal who has been quoted as saying "I never let one of them in"

by Robert Tue Jun 07, 2005 23:59

If these people are bogus, he shouldn't "let one of them in". Why admit people who are just here to use the system - no way.

Our system is very fair, we have to my knowledge never sent anybody back to torture or to a firing squad or any other bad situation.

Ireland and its EU partners are going to hit this abuse with an iron fist, it has to stop. Economic migrants is what the majority are, why can't you admit this?

by eeekkkkk Wed Jun 08, 2005 00:05

They are 'bogus' by definition because they appeal.

Is the same true of irish people who appeal criminal convictions tony?

by Robert Wed Jun 08, 2005 00:18

No, they are bogus because they have been found out to have no real case! That's why they need to appeal.

by eeekkkkk Wed Jun 08, 2005 00:43

It's not me that is foaming at the mouth shouting 'bogus bogus bogus' and haunting a left wing website because my blog is a lazy disaster.

Guilty until proven innocent is not what they thought you in civics classes about legal processes robert.

I can find you guilty and you can find me guilty because we are pseudunyms on a website, and it means nothing.

You finding all asylum seekers who appeal the decisions of Michael McDowell 'bogus' simply by virtue of them appealing seems to me the equivalent of the old tests for witches

if they drown they're innocent

if they float they're guilty

by eeekkkkk Wed Jun 08, 2005 00:50

EEEKKK: Is the same true of irish people who appeal criminal convictions tony?

Robert (tony): No, they are bogus because they have been found out to have no real case! That's why they need to appeal.

You mean the McBreartys Robert?

I can hear his masters voice as he throws a file or two aside in his daily routine

'all bogus'

our south park upstanding ladder-climbing upholder

by Robert (not tony) Wed Jun 08, 2005 01:04

What are you on about? If our government had its way, we would interview these bogus aliens in the airport/port. Then we would send them straight back. There is no grounds for asylum from Romania full stop. And if in the event there was a freak incident where some roma was genuine - we shouldn't have to listen to his/her case under the Dublin Convention. Let the deportations roll! Only GENUINE need apply!

Now go and avoid the subject.

by eeekkkk Wed Jun 08, 2005 01:36

1. Non-functional. “Your patches are bogus.”

2. Useless. “OPCON is a bogus program.”

3. False. “Your arguments are bogus.”

4. Incorrect. “That algorithm is bogus.”

5. Unbelievable. “You claim to have solved the halting problem for Turing Machines? That's totally bogus.”

6. Silly. “Stop writing those bogus sagas.”very common; by analogy with proton/electron/neutron, but doubtless reinforced after 1980 by the similarity to Douglas Adams's ‘Vogons’; see the Bibliography in Appendix C and note that Arthur Dent actually mispronounces ‘Vogons’ as ‘Bogons’ at one point]

1. The elementary particle of bogosity (see quantum bogodynamics). For instance, “the Ethernet is emitting bogons again” means that it is broken or acting in an erratic or bogus fashion.

2. A query packet sent from a TCP/IP domain resolver to a root server, having the reply bit set instead of the query bit.

3. Any bogus or incorrectly formed packet sent on a network.

4. By synecdoche, used to refer to any bogus thing, as in “I'd like to go to lunch with you but I've got to go to the weekly staff bogon”.

5. A person who is bogus or who says bogus things. This was historically the original usage, but has been overtaken by its derivative senses 1--4. See also bogosity, bogus; compare psyton, fat electrons, magic smoke.

The bogon has become the type case for a whole bestiary of nonce particle names, including the ‘clutron’ or ‘cluon’ (indivisible particle of cluefulness, obviously the antiparticle of the bogon) and the futon (elementary particle of randomness, or sometimes of lameness). These are not so much live usages in themselves as examples of a live meta-usage: that is, it has become a standard joke or linguistic maneuver to “explain” otherwise mysterious circumstances by inventing nonce particle names. And these imply nonce particle theories, with all their dignity or lack thereof (we might note parenthetically that this is a generalization from “(bogus particle) theories” to “bogus (particle theories)”!). Perhaps such particles are the modern-day equivalents of trolls and wood-nymphs as standard starting-points around which to construct explanatory myths. Of course, playing on an existing word (as in the ‘futon’) yields additional flavor.

by eeekkk Wed Jun 08, 2005 01:42

It is claimed that bogus was originally used in the hackish sense at Princeton in the late 1960s. It was spread to CMU and Yale by Michael Shamos, a migratory Princeton alumnus. A glossary of bogus words was compiled at Yale when the word was first popularized there about 1975-76. These coinages spread into hackerdom from CMU and MIT. Most of them remained wordplay objects rather than actual vocabulary items or live metaphors. Examples: amboguous (having multiple bogus interpretations); bogotissimo (in a gloriously bogus manner); bogotophile (one who is pathologically fascinated by the bogus); paleobogology (the study of primeval bogosity).

by Robert Wed Jun 08, 2005 01:47

excellent picture of the man saving us from an invasion of BOGUS asylum seekers.

I heard there is another big deportation in the next 10 days......wonder how I know that????

You are some desperate man.

by eeeeellll Wed Jun 08, 2005 01:49

1. [orig. CMU, now very common] The degree to which something is bogus. Bogosity is measured with a bogometer; in a seminar, when a speaker says something bogus, a listener might raise his hand and say “My bogometer just triggered”. More extremely, “You just pinned my bogometer” means you just said or did something so outrageously bogus that it is off the scale, pinning the bogometer needle at the highest possible reading (one might also say “You just redlined my bogometer”).

by Sherlock Holmes Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:35

"We have one of the fairest asylum system's in the world."

How have you come to this conclusion? Compare the rejection rates in Ireland to abroad. It shows we do not have the fairest.


"Genuine people can come here in the knowledge they will be given refuge in our state."

Bullshit. You have already prejudged them as has Michael McDowell. You have done this with feck all knowledge of the asylum process.

"Bogus asylum seekers should be deported without the right to appeal!"

Pre judging them again. This is ICP and far right lunacy sprouting out of your mouth.

"Why admit people who are just here to use the system - no way."

More crap. People don't come to "abuse the system". Only a fool would think people would cross the globe for 19 euros a week. Allow asylum seekers to work and it would stop people like you talking shite.

"excellent picture of the man saving us from an invasion of BOGUS asylum seekers."

Again language from the far right. A complete delusional.

"I heard there is another big deportation in the next 10 days......wonder how I know that????"

We can only wonder! The date of the deportation is the 9th of June. A demo has been called outside the GNIB at 1.30 for thursday.

by Al Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:14

Eeeeek / Pol,
An immigrant is not the same thing as a refugee. theres a big difference between the two. Try landing in JFK tomorrow morning without a passport and see where it gets you.
I repeat my comments, there are no Garda checkpoints on trains, what a stupid statement to make. What exactly would be the purpose of such a checkpoint? You can travel between Belfast and Dublin if you want.
You can argue all you want but the facts remain. The false claims are rejected and genuine accepted. Eeeek, you have still failed to show any proof that there is a quota as you previously claimed. Who are you quoting above? No name, no date. Bit like the anti-deportation man I spoke to who said "Im gonna burn your house down and kill your family" Oh wait, no I just made that up.
I agree with democracy, maybe you dont Eeeek but I do and 80% have spoken.
BTW, if Robert is my evil version does that make me the good one?

by Sherlock Holmes Wed Jun 08, 2005 13:36

I think the two of you are confused as to what the referendum last year was and what it meant. It was about taking away citizenship from children born to non Irish parents. If you saw something else on the ballot paper could you explain what you saw?

by Devil Dog Wed Jun 08, 2005 13:46

Can you take away something from someone who never had it?

It's not like the referendum is retroactive, is it?

BTW Sherlock, re your allegation that there is "institutional racism" in the Irish asylum system, made on the basis that you claim there is IR in the GS - can you tell me what functional role the GS plays in deciding whether to uphold or deny an asylum claim or in an appeal against such a denial?

by redjade Wed Jun 08, 2005 13:59

.

that 80%

by Sherlock Holmes Wed Jun 08, 2005 14:23

"Can you take away something from someone who never had it?"

A bit of historical revisionism there D.D. The right to citizenship through birth on the island existed since the foundation of this State. This right was taken away through referendum. If it wasn't there why would the governement have run the referendum?


D.D. just because the Guards don't judge each case does not mean that IR exists within the Gardai. How foolish of you to think so!

by eeekkkkk Wed Jun 08, 2005 14:49

"I repeat my comments, there are no Garda checkpoints on trains, what a stupid statement to make. What exactly would be the purpose of such a checkpoint? You can travel between Belfast and Dublin if you want."

Trains from belfast to dublin stop regularly at dundalk and are boarded by immigration / gardai in pairs.

I travel on the 6.10 from Belfast central each tusday and observe these people getting on, making their way the length of the train challenging other passengers for id/visas etc.

Why the fuck would I make this up Al?

by Devil Dog Wed Jun 08, 2005 15:07

ds born to non-Irish kidsA bit of historical revisionism there D.D. The right to citizenship through birth on the island existed since the foundation of this State. This right was taken away through referendum. If it wasn't there why would the governement have run the referendum?


"D.D. just because the Guards don't judge each case does not mean that IR exists within the Gardai. How foolish of you to think so!"

The above is a non-sequitur...plus I can only assume you meant to typre "doesn't exist" too.

So are you telling us that the GS do not play a substantive role in determining the outcome of asylum claims? And, if so, how can you use as evidence a claim that the GS is racist in support of your allegation that the asylum claims decision making process is racist?

You claim that the referendum took citizenship away from kids born to non-Irish parents. Now, are you saying that it is retroactive i.e. removes citizenship from kids born in Ireland prior to its effective date?

If it's not retroactive, then such kids (born since its effective date) never had Irish citizenship, therefore, something which they never had cannot be taken away from them.

Redjade: That RTE poll refers to spontaneous reasons for voting "yes" - I'm assuming it excludes voters who voted with deliberation, as opposed to spontaneity.

by Shelock Holmes Wed Jun 08, 2005 15:29

Those kids born after the change in the law don't have the right. But children of non irish nationals did have the right before the referendum. Is that clear enough for you?
You are clutching at straws now D.D.

Also the Guards can refuse people entry at the ports. There is no outside bodies supervision at the ports. The high refusal rates of refugee application compared to other countries was what i used as proof of Institutional racism not the Gardai. It was the Ionnan report which dealt with the Gardai.

by Devil Dog Wed Jun 08, 2005 16:03

"Proof of Institutional racism has come in the report I mentioned of the Guardai. ."

"The high refusal rates of refugee application compared to other countries was what i used as proof of Institutional racism not the Gardai. "

You seem to be contradicting yourself there....

Yep, the GS can refuse people at ports of entry but not if they claim asylum.


"It was about taking away citizenship from children born to non Irish parents"

"Those kids born after the change in the law don't have the right. But children of non irish nationals did have the right before the referendum. Is that clear enough for you?
You are clutching at straws now D.D."

You admit that kids born after the change don't have the right of citizenship - I'm asking you, how can something which they never had be taken away from them, as you claimed in an earlier post?

Don't think I'm the one clutching at straws pal...

by Sherlock Homes Wed Jun 08, 2005 16:22

First of all I am not contradicting myself. One is the Garda who don't adjudicate on individual cases. The high rejection rates is what I have used as proof of Institutional racism within the application procedure. The Ionnan report dealt with it within the Gardai. How would you know whether the Gardai allow entry to those wanting to claim asylum?. There is no indepndent monitoring at the ports. Many asylum seekers have claimed that the Guards in the airports have tried to deport them without granting them the right to claim asylum, some have been saved by passers by.

All children before the referendum, once born here, were citizens. After the referendum that right was taken away from children born to foreign national parents. How much clearer would you like me to put it. It is plainly obvious to people, thats what people were asked to vote on. You on the other hand obviously see something completely different. You are most certainly clutching at straws. You are also clearly trying to re write history. A historical revisionist now D.D. how interesting...

by Al Wed Jun 08, 2005 17:19

1. the referendom removed automatic entitled to citizenship therefore removing the loophole that allowed parents of an irish born child to stay.

Sherlock,
Ionnan report, can you tell me who organised this and how their opinion was reached (I have no intention of paying a subscription just to read a newspaper report)? There was only two studies carried out with the agreement of the Gardai, one by Amnesty and the second by Pavee point. The first found a small amount but was not concerned with the force as a whole. it did however recommend training in how to deal with foreign nationals as Ireland is now a multi-culteral country. It also recommended alternatives to compulsary irish as part of the recruitment process. the recommendations made by Amnesty were taken up over 4 years ago with the Irish set to be abandoned at some stage (I think it should be gone a long time now). Pavee point concluded that there was a negative attitude towards travellers and agreed to get involved with the new training within Templemore, they have been doing so for 4 years. Note: their reasoning was the high level for prosecutions against travellers for tax/insurance and other RTA incidents.

Redjade,
That is given reasons and not the official result. What are you attempting to prove? That 97% agreed with the referendum?

Eeeek,
You make it up because you constantly do so. Why would I say it doesnt happen if it does? You travel once a week and therefore it does, well Im a Garda and I know it doesnt. You still havent given me a reason for the train to be boarded.

Sherlock,
the Gardai do not operate a station at any Irish ports. Customs have stations there. We have a station within Dublin airport grounds however it is the Airport police that operate within the airport. passport control is the only involvement we have and that doesnt go any further than checking people have them. What do you think happens? theres a couple of hundred thousand people sitting on the runway of Dublin airport because they cant get through? BTW, before you say Im wrong. I work in Store street, we cover Dublin port. I know we dont operate there.

Finally, please answer my questions, i have the decency to answer yours.

1. Was Ireland the first safe country they encountered?
2. Why did they leave their child behind?
3. What was their reason for claiming asylum?
4. Do you not accept democracy?
5. Did they gain entry and lodge an asylum claim?
6. Can you prove the Gardai are stopping and deporting at the airport?
7. Have you in fact ever seen a complete stranger step in and stop a Garda from arresting someone? I know its never happened to me.
8. Was their claim rejected?
9. Why do you think they should be allowed claim asylum here?

heres a quote from yourself, i belive DD has asked you about it already "Proof of Institutional racism has come in the report I mentioned of the Guardai. If you read what I said the high rejection rate is down to Institutional racism and nothing else." I will also ask you, is your report about the Gardai proof of rascism within the process?

by Robert Wed Jun 08, 2005 17:27

Sherlock, your investigative skills need to be tuned up. Ireland’s recognition rate for refugee status is well ahead of many of our European counterparts, at 6.2%.

Denmark is just under 5%, while the UK and Germany are around 3% and Spain is 2.6%.

So what does this say for the quality of your brain matter?

by Bean-counter Wed Jun 08, 2005 17:35

Hi al, I hear tell your former Store St. colleague, Michael Finn, is now working in the immigration section at Dublin Airport. That does not inspire confidence given his intimate closeness to the whole garda 'heavy gang' issue.

by eeekkkk Wed Jun 08, 2005 17:49

Compare and Contrast Folks: This is almost Fun:

Al (Re police and immigration on trians at dundalk) : Eeeek,
You make it up because you constantly do so. Why would I say it doesnt happen if it does? You travel once a week and therefore it does, well Im a Garda and I know it doesnt. You still havent given me a reason for the train to be boarded.

Sherlock,
the Gardai do not operate a station at any Irish ports. Customs have stations there. We have a station within Dublin airport grounds however it is the Airport police that operate within the airport. passport control is the only involvement we have and that doesnt go any further than checking people have them. What do you think happens? theres a couple of hundred thousand people sitting on the runway of Dublin airport because they cant get through? BTW, before you say Im wrong. I work in Store street, we cover Dublin port. I know we dont operate there.

The Below is from Garda.ie :

"Since September 2001 the Immigration Unit at Dublin Airport is an integral part of the GNIB. The Immigration Unit at the Airport comprises 1 Inspector, 6 Sergeants and 46 Gardaí.

Apart from the Gardaí attached to the GNIB, there are also Garda personnel assigned to Immigration duties at all sea and airports in the country, at all Garda District Headquarters Stations outside of Dublin and on a random basis along the border with Northern Ireland."

by Sherlock Holmes Wed Jun 08, 2005 18:27

Al the audit was carried out at the request of the Garda Siochana themselves. You should have known this since, supposedly, you are a Guard.

Here is the article

Garda criticised in human rights report
Conor Lally

An independent human rights audit of An Garda Síochána has found that procedures and operating practices within the force "can lead to institutional racism" particularly in relation to Nigerians, Travellers and Muslims.

The Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy said he accepted all of the recommendations arising from the audit and said these would all be implemented by the end of 2007. Senior officers had already been fully briefed.

Some members of the force expressed concern to the authors of the audit "about the increase in racist attacks and the lack of police action to tackle these".

The report, which was published yesterday, also recommends a review of bullying and anti-harassment procedures saying some gardaí questioned during the audit had expressed concerns in this regard.

There was an "urgent need" for better race and diversity training in order that gardaí would be better equipped to deal with Ireland's changing and diverse community.

The audit also found "little evidence that human rights are embedded" in the force's policy or operational procedures.

It recommends that the Department of Justice review the role of An Garda Síochána in enforcing immigration law. The force's role in this area had sometimes undermined its efforts to develop good relations with minority communities giving rise to conflict instead.

The audit will not make easy reading for Garda management and the Government, coming as it does on the same day the Nigerian student Olukunle Elukanlo returns to Ireland after strong public reaction against his deportation. There has also been strong criticism at the handling of other recent deportations.

Several members of the force expressed concern to the report's authors, Ionann Management Consultants, about nepotism in the promotions procedures. They also complained about "procedures for progression which militated against women members".

The audit was carried out by Ionann and was commissioned by the force's Human Rights Working Group. This group was established following a Council of Europe initiative on policing and human rights which took place between 1997 and 2001.

Some 4,000 questionnaires were sent out to serving members and civilians working for the force in July 2003. The questionnaires were sent to one-third of those serving between the ranks of garda and sergeant and one- third of the civilian staff.

All of those ranked inspector to superintendent were sent a questionnaire. Some 1,242 were completed and returned.

Ionann also interviewed 20 of the force's most senior officers and 25 community groups also took part in the process.

In a statement last night, the Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy, who was interviewed for the audit in July 2003, said he fully accepts the recommendations in the report and he intended to implement them.

Mr Conroy had studied the report's 15 recommendations and a clear timetable for the implementation of these had already been drawn up. These were published along with the audit yesterday. The recommendations would be introduced on a phased basis before the end of 2007.

Mr Conroy has asked the Assistant Commissioner Nacie Rice to "oversee and ensure the implementation of all aspects of the report".

At a management seminar two weeks ago at the Garda College, Templemore, senior officers of Chief Supt rank or higher received an extensive briefing on the audit and the action plan. Among the 15 main recommendations are as follows:

Identify and tackle institutional racism.

Deal robustly with racist crime and protect vulnerable communities.

Protect the human rights of the force's staff.

Undertake a human rights impact assessment of existing and forthcoming policy and operational procedures and establish systems to monitor compliance with human rights.

Provide more support for staff to report human rights abuses.



As for your questions:

1. Was Ireland the first safe country they encountered?
Irrelevant

2. Why did they leave their child behind?
I don't know I am not them, perhaps they believed that their child would have a better life in Ireland. Reinforces the belief that they are fleeing persecution.

3. What was their reason for claiming asylum?
Fleeing persecution

4. Do you not accept democracy?
What the hell are you talking about. You are spouting nonsense. What sort of idiot are you?

5. Did they gain entry and lodge an asylum claim?
I am not them. But they must have.

6. Can you prove the Gardai are stopping and deporting at the airport?
Yes I have contacts with people who were witnesses to these incidents. Also a famous case in the papers was when Youseff N'dour (excuse my spelling) the singer was halted at the airport. Sean Haughey or Ardagh (i can't remember which one) had to go out to the airport to get him released. This was despite the fact that he was playing a gig in the redbox that night.

7. Have you in fact ever seen a complete stranger step in and stop a Garda from arresting someone? I know its never happened to me?.

I thought you were based in Store Street not the airport, there's plenty of things that don't happen to you that exist. That's a stupid argument

8. Was their claim rejected?
Your now asking questions that don't make sense

9. Why do you think they should be allowed claim asylum here?
I believe in open borders. I posted it above. No wonder so many criminals go undetected with your powers of detection

Robert,

84% of applications in the UK were rejected at the first instance. This info is available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/asylumq105.pdf
The info is on page 3.
I wouldn't worry about my brain matter if i was you. I would worry more about your stupidity. Nice figures those, whose arse did you pull them out of, or did you just make them up?

by Robert Wed Jun 08, 2005 18:36

Was Ireland the first safe country they encountered? Excuse me, that's very relevant - because under the Dublin Convention Agreement of 1999, they can be deported back to the first safe country they entered.

You just don't believe in the rule of law, whether that is local or international law....typical anarchist ideology. Pure rubbish.

by PseudoNom Wed Jun 08, 2005 19:00

http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ6D6ER3-en

by Al Wed Jun 08, 2005 19:15

Eeeeek,
GNIB deport failed asylum seekers after they arrive, claim asylum and are rejected. They are in the station within the airports grounds, didnt I say we had a station there? I believe I did.
As for the staff assigned, yes at passport control. exactly what i said. You have just confirmed exactly what I said.
Does random along the border prove trains from belfast are always boarded? I dont think so. Just like trains from Dublin are not stopped by the PSNI. Will I give you a clue why? Open border policy between the two states you idiot. This is from Department of foreign affairs: "Passports are required for travel to all countries except the United Kingdom. (However, you should note that some airlines now require photo-ID for flights to the UK)." Passport control does not apply to journeys originating from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. Also note only flights may require ID not trains or ferries.

Sherlock,
I concede I was unaware of this audit as I was obviously not within the third questioned however I must point out a few things. A, it was an audit on how the Gardai handle crimes motivated by racism, our knowledge of current laws governing these crimes and our training in dealing with victims, It was not an original work to study Garda racism. B, Its research material included the Pavee point and Amnesty studies for 2000 and 2001. the ones I stated. It did no original study into these areas at all. C, Please link "procedures and operating practices within the force "can lead to institutional racism" particularly in relation to Nigerians, Travellers and Muslims" to the recomendations. The ones mentioned in the article were:
1. Deal robustly with racist crime and protect vulnerable communities
2. Protect the human rights of the force's staff
3.Undertake a human rights impact assessment of existing and forthcoming policy and operational procedures and establish systems to monitor compliance with human rights.
4. Provide more support for staff to report human rights abuses.
Now this is only 4. However nothing in the report claims Gardai are racist so while I was mistaken in not being aware of this report I am still unsure as to its relivence.

As for my questions. Considering they must claim asylum within the first safe country they encounter I believe my question is very relevent. Why did they wait until they hit Ireland?
A person being stopped for having no passport is not being deported. My question still stands.
You make it sound like people have to step in against the Gardai on a regular basis, therefore if I am a Garda and it has never happened I believe my comment is relevent.
As for open borders, completely different argument to asylum, open borders is not asylum. So my question still stands, if you said that you believe everyone should be allowed travel freely then thats a different point.
BTW, I agree with open borders. I believe people should be allowed enter and work here. What I dont agree with is people claiming asylum when there is no basis.

by Robert Wed Jun 08, 2005 19:32

Hi Al,

Your "evil brother" is online, I couldn't agree more with your points. They never answer the questions put to them. They will never accept a state policy which includes ANY deportations - however fabricated the excuses given by the individuals concerned. They refuse to acknowledge the Dublin Convention of 1999.

Was Ireland the first safe country they encountered? The response from Sherlock says a lot for his anarchist outlook - "Irrelevant"

I can only suggest they are living in a state of denial, Ireland has no laws they should follow according to their logic. And if that were the case, you would be out of a job!

by Al Wed Jun 08, 2005 19:52

No, Im afraid Robert you are not as evil as me so from here on in you are mini-Al.
I have to leave you to the maniacs for a few days as Im gonna be busy in my non-existent job.
Wonder what Eeeek and Alwatch will do, try not to cry boys and remember, its only a message board.
Note: Maniacs does not include all posters. Sherlock and Barry are capable of proper debate.

by Robert Wed Jun 08, 2005 19:56

I'm honoured to be known henceforth as mini-Al. If that means I get half as much flack as you - I'll be happy.

by Sherlock Holmes Wed Jun 08, 2005 20:09

In McDowell's press release he has figures which are contradicted by the UK's Home Office for a start. Another point would be that since he recognise's that Nigeria is not a safe country. Why would he deport people to a country that he recognise's as unsafe? What about FGM?

Al,

You will see in that article if you read it the comment "Identify and tackle institutional racism." Why didn't you see this? or are you ignoring it?

What person stopped without a passport? Where did this come from? What are you trying to say here? What are you now introducing?


Robert,

"Anarchist outlook" you are now behaving like a little child again "left wingers" and "anarchist". Here's one for you. Moron!.

As for the Dublin Convention it is an EU convention not a worldwide convention. You should know this Al your a garda.

by Bingo Bango Wed Jun 08, 2005 20:18

What kind of a tosser are you?

by PseudoNom Wed Jun 08, 2005 20:51

(In McDowell's press release he has figures which are contradicted by the UK's Home Office for a start. Another point would be that since he recognise's that Nigeria is not a safe country. Why would he deport people to a country that he recognise's as unsafe? What about FGM?)


If you read the link, in black and white:

http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ6D6ER3-en

In the case of Nigeria which has a very high failure rate and a very high application rate, these grounds justify prioritising examination of asylum claims. Contrary to ill-informed commentary, Nigeria has not been designated a "safe country". It is a country with a proven record internationally of unjustified applications for asylum status, as is evidenced by the enormous international rejection rate.

by Robert Wed Jun 08, 2005 21:24

Nigerians generally have to pass through another EU country to get here dumbass. Countries they usually pass through are France, Germany and the UK. This in itself brings the Dublin Convention into play. You should do some research....or don't bother saying anything.

You just can't accept the fact, that you are unable to stop the hard line policy which the Government is taking on bogus asylum seekers. It's only going to get tougher, until we turn Ireland into a very tough destination for NON GENUINE asylum seekers.

If some are genuine, they will be given refuge, if they are not, they will be sent back like a bullet, and rightly so!

by Robert Thu Jun 09, 2005 00:39

There you go - figures:

I provided firgures which were disregarded by some fools - here's more: "Less than 1%, therefore, of all Nigerian national asylum seekers succeed at first instance in the European Union member states that receive most Nigerian applications." The figure is 0.6% in Ireland, this proves the overwhelming majority are making groundless asylum claims, and deserve their place on our accelerated list.

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:36

Ireland is part of the European wide finger printing system. If someone claims asylum here who claimed in another EU country they would be caught and deported. This has happened before in several cases. A bit of research there Robert, you should try it. Remember innocent until proven guilty is one of the pillars of justice over here, not the other way around as you "little right whinger" would have it.

My point stands. Nigeria is not a safe country. Why would you deport someone to an unsafe country. FGM is still not grounds for claiming asylum. Domestic abuse, and violence against women is still prevailant in Nigeria. McDowell deports people back to these situations. How many young girls has he deported back to be brutally mutilated?.

His UK figures are wrong. I have not checked the other countries figures but i will. McDowell is a very dishonest man and should not be trusted.

by Robert Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:51

Al has a point, at least you are capable of debate. You have absolutely zero proof that any person who was deported from here, back to Nigeria was brutally mutilated. Nigeria is not a perfectly safe Country, however, it is not akin to Sudan for example. As the Minister has stated, Nigeria is a country with a proven record internationally of unjustified applications for asylum status, as is evidenced by the enormous international rejection rate.

0.6 % are recognised as refugees, does that not tell you something about the lies?? Its 0.1% in Spain. The figures internationally prove that nearly all asylum claims from Nigeria are without foundation.

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:03

Nigeria is unsafe. Therfore logically people have a genuine reason to leave there. As i said earlier the figures for the UK are wrong. I haven't had time to check the other figures but i will over the weekend. I can't prove that all the young girls deported were mutilated, but McDowell and you can't prove that they weren't. FGM is not recognised in Ireland as grounds for asylum. Many applicants have claimed that as the reason for wanting asylum. FGM is still fairly widespread in certain regions of Nigeria. Logically if you deport someone who is at risk of FGM back to an area where FGM is still common then invariably they will get the brutal procedure performed on them. This is only of the reasons claimed for asylum, there are others equally as valid.

by eeekkkk Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:19

.

by Robert Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:50

I note you say CERTAIN parts. If they were genuine, spain wouldn't be accepting only 0.1% of them. Other very funny reasons for Nigerians seeking asylum :

Fear of local tribal customs as the first born son of a royal family;
Fear of village elders arising from requirement to replace grandmother as head of the village;
Successor to be king after father's death;
Heir to father's throne;
Treated as a domestic servant by his mother's friends;
Sacrifice of first born child

A load of dog shit reasons.

Mensonges, (that's lies for those without french)

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Jun 09, 2005 14:25

How many claimed these as reasons?

The decisions aren't published. What McDowell has done is picked a few that suit his argument and published them. He didn't publish FGM, domestic abuse or other problems regarding such a society as exists in Nigeria. In Nigeria the head of the family is the father. If a son marry's, his wife is under the authority of her husbands father. This has led, obviously, to problems which people have fled from. He did not publish these. Nor did he publish political dissent as a reason. Nigeria is still a corrupt democracy. Elections are not fair, and political opponents have been harrassed and jailed. Many asylum seekers have claimed asylum as a result of this. Extra judicial killings still take place. Nigeria is not a safe country, it makes no sense to deport someone to an unsafe country. Remeber McDowell is currently trying to deport people to Somalia, how safe does he think Somalia is?

Why not have full open transparency in the asylum process?
Why not publish the decisions so that they can be examined independently?
I understand there will be some that couldn't be published due to legal cases being taken, but that doesn't need to prevent the others being published.

by Robert Thu Jun 09, 2005 14:59

Listen Sherlock,

Its not just Mc Dowell who is deporting Nigerians - every dam member state of the EU is. Whilst I realise there are a few cases which may indeed be genuine, the vast majority clearly are bogus, totally unfounded applications. I repeat the statistics – 0.6% in Ireland are found to be genuine, 0.3% in Austria, and only 0.1% in Spain. All these nations are not wrongly deporting these people!!

Numerous posters have already pointed this out to you - they (Nigerian Asylum Seekers) failed to seek protection in the first safe country, this in itself makes their claim invalid in Ireland.

It even states this on Mc Dowell's honest comments. It’s a given, an asylum seeker must seek protection in the first safe country -Nigerians travel far and wide in order to get the best deal. That’s what they did when we were giving their children Citizenship. I think you are the one who must do some research. I am very well up on the fraudulent applications Ireland has to put up with.

by Whatever Thu Jun 09, 2005 15:09

Very little of Africa is 'safe' in that sense. Vast parts of India and China aren't either. So we should open Europe's doors to what, 2 billion people, more? Is anyone seriously saying that such a vast population flow would be good for Europe? There is VERY little evidence that large scale adversely selected immigration is good for host economies, in fact, it usually causes the kind of vast wealth redistribution from Labour to Capital I imagine most socialists here would abhore

by Sherlock Holmes Thu Jun 09, 2005 15:14

Robert,

How many asylum applications are made with the reasons McDowell made?
How many are made with FGM as the reason?

Since you are so well up with the knowledge then you will have no problem with providing the info.

The high failure rates is down to racism. If the country is unsafe then they have genuine reasons to flee. That is the bottom line. Remember innocent until proven guilty. You and McDowell have pre judged these applicants.

We didn't grant citizenship, people were born into it, Robert. And, McDowell is a very dishonest man. He is a liar, and should not be trusted by anybody

by Robert Thu Jun 09, 2005 15:26

whatever,

I agree with you totally - excellent point. I am in favour of a situation where those from Africa etc, who have SKILLS we need in Europe, are allowed work permits. Very different situation from what Sherlock and Co want, they want Nigerians etc to be allowed to work just because they made an asylum claim. This is why Europe needs to look at its work permit scheme.

Nigerians just apply for asylum wherever they go in the world, no matter how bogus the stories they make up. I repeat, people from non European countries, should be allowed to work here, not claim asylum, which is all they seem to do. Coming here and making a bogus claim for Asylum damages our Economy, this money could be put to better use. If the skilled, educated people of that Country want to come here, they should do it via a work permit.

by Pol Thu Jun 09, 2005 16:47

For those of you labouring under the illusion that Nigeria is a Shangra-La, here is a link to Human Rights Watch Africa, which shows the place to be fairly grim and certainly no place to live a free and happy life:
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=nigeri

Here is also a link to the National Geographic News on the subject of child sacrafice in Africa, for those of you who can't believe it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0210_020510_tv_witchcraft.html

And here's Nelson Mandela on the subject:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1938580.stm

This is a link to the Nigeria Socialist Party:
http://www.socialistnigeria.org/
Which contains the following article, guaranteed to make youe heart blush with patriotic pride:
"Ireland: "My ordeal in Nigeria"
Kunle’s statement to Lagos press conference
After a short, but very high profile campaign, the Irish government was forced to reverse the brutal deportation of Elukanlo Olukunle (Kunle), a refugee from Nigeria who is now a secondary school student in Ireland. Kunle was deported in his school uniform and flown to Lagos where he was simply dumped. Immediately his fellow school students began a campaign to bring him back that was taken up by Joe Higgins, a member of the Irish parliament for the Socialist Party, the Irish affiliate of the Committee for a Workers’ International of which the DSM is the Nigerian affiliate. Following the Irish Justice Minister’s decision to allow him back into Ireland Elukanlo Olukunle spoke at a press conference in Lagos on 25 March."

In case you're still convinced that Nigeria is a laugh-a-minute paradise , here are a few more links:
http://www.afrol.com/articles/14280 (press)
http://www.rufarm.kabissa.org/articles/2004report.htm (women)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3730109.stm (poverty)

And, yet again, here's the link to the page on Roma abuse/civil rights in Eastern Europe, seeing as how this thread was triggered of by the story of a Roma deportation:
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/rights.htm

Happy reading.

by unhcr Fri Jun 10, 2005 14:08

reland to resettle more refugees, says Minister

DUBLIN, Ireland, June 9 (UNHCR) – Ireland is significantly increasing its annual refugee resettlement quota from 10 cases (approximately 40 individuals) to 200 individuals per year, the Irish Minister of Justice, Equality & Law Reform, Michael McDowell, announced on Wednesday.

long link C&P all-
http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/news/+GwwBm6eHlJ3cwwwhFqnN0bItFqnDni5zFqn
N0bIAFqnN0bIDzmxwww1FqnN0bI/opendoc.htm