Possible Deportation Support Needed

by Renee Mon Apr 03, 2006 19:53

For the sake of clarification and in case asylum seekers are reading this and now scared shitless, would Emma please indicate if she believes that asylum seekers are to be deported or not.

It is deceitful to imply otherwise if this is not the case.

by damon Tue Apr 04, 2006 00:13

Just back from the residents against racism link provided.

Nothing there on this story. Can you give a link to the page?

by Emma Tue Apr 04, 2006 16:39

There is a deportation taken place today to Nigeria more than a dozen people have been taken upstairs in the gnib and have been taken out the back to Dublin Airport, we need all the support possible right now and there is more people due to come back at 5pm this evening please come out and show solidarity we will more than likely be there all day.

by cian Wed Apr 05, 2006 00:08

One out of every five black man in the world is a Nigerian and besides Ireland like Nigeria is an English speaking nation that is why our little Island is attractive to Nigerians. I do not think our asylum system is unfair to Nigerians but I know that the country is not particularly safe, the Government does not obey the decision of the courts and there is wide spread violence.

by Observer Thu Apr 06, 2006 21:00

The UN officially recognizes Nigeria as a safe country.

Maybe they're lying to whole world though!

by Cailtin - Code Pink Ireland Thu Apr 06, 2006 21:52 coedpinkireland at gmail dot com

Female genital mutilation is, according to the UN itself, a human-rights issue, or did it abolish what it wrote last year?

http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/FGM/default.asp

And Amnesty Int'l concurs:

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm10.htm

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm6.htm

Just because a country passes laws forbidden certain practices does not make them go away, e.g., Prohibition in the US, Roman Catholicism in Ireland. And neither does the fact that Michael McDowell disallows evidence for these crimes in asylum cases.

It's tragic that this news did not receive the attention it deserved in time to try and stop the insanity of the the renditions . . . uh, I mean deportations.

by Observer Fri Apr 07, 2006 15:50

For your information, I never denied that the UN said that. What I am emphasising is that even though Ireland is an officially recignized 'safe' country by the UN, there are gangland killings every year and if I went to Australia and applied for asylum there citing that I live in fear of my life in my home country because of these gangland killings, does this justify my application?
No.

Like Ireland, Nigeria may have similar problems only they may classify them as tribal ones etc but that does not justify the thousands of Nigerians leaving their country and coming here for asylum seeking. Coincidentally, I also find it quite questioning how so many would come to English speaking countries like Ireland and britain ahead of the first 'safe' countries they pass through first, and why Ireland has the highest rate of applications from Nigeria.

by Lady Caroline Fri Apr 07, 2006 21:59

But surely Cailtin, FGM is a traditional cultural practice carried out mainly in Sub Saharan Africa including Nigeria. Although it was long ago criminalised by the Nigerian authorities, it may still be illegally practiced there by some individuals who prefer upholding their traditions and culture instead of adapting to democratic principals or laws.

But under the circumstances might it not appear much more logical, to direct your obvious concerns, more towards those representatives of the countries responsible e.g. by staging regular Anti-FGM protests outside the Nigerian Embassy.
By choosing to raise this issue only at times when deportations are scheduled and outside the GNIB, will have little or no impact whatsoever in bringing this barbaric practice to a stop.

Curiously I have yet to hear of a single protest organised by RAR or indeed by any other concerned FGM group either outside the Nigerian or any other embassy, with such objective in mind.

by kamsi Thu Apr 20, 2006 19:15 nelly1000000 at yahoo dot com

Personally, the world is not safe but some parts are safer than others. Nigeria is not volatile and unsafe as these asylum seekers portray it. I cannot conceive the idea of anyone seeking asylum from Nigeria. It is better for them to ask for work permit if they are professionals, which the country will be willing to give them as they will help improve the economy rather than going through the cloak of asylum.

On the other hand deporting them is not the best as most of them will loose grip of life and frustration and depression will result into another dangerous monster. Since they are already in Ireland, give them that status to work so that they will pay tax. If they live as asylum seekers they will be on benefit which is not worthwhile.

It would be better for the government to list countries that cannot be granted asylum to avoid the cock and bull story from these people.

by elspeth Thu Apr 20, 2006 21:30

No Kamsi, we should not allow failed asylum-seekers work.

Asylum-seekers are people who come here, not to seek work but to seek sanctuary. Where their claim for asylum is found to be justified they consequently get the right to work. Where their claims are found to be bogus, they are rightly deemed illegal immigrants with no right to reside here or work here.

There is no chance whatsoever that this government, or the Fine Gael/Labour alternative, (in the slim chance it wins the next election), will ever again allow failed asylum-seekers to work. Anyone who believes otherwise just hasn't been listening to the Irish people and their representatives.

Ireland welcomes legal immigrants coming here to work. It operates the most generous system applying in any western nation.
If you are an EU national, you are completely free to come here and look for, or take up work. If you are from outside the EU you must apply from your country of origin for a work-permit. These are granted on wider grounds than in most other countries. At the moment the system is being further liberalized.

However, as to the idea that people could come here illegally, either as asylum-cheats, or otherwise, and then apply for work. Never!

Fortunately, there is a consensus among all the major parties on this principle.

by SH Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:48

Elspeth you are completely wrong. There is no cross party consensus on the right for asylum seekers to work and it is completely infactual for you to say that there is. The UNHCR has stated that Ireland should grant the right for asylum seekers to work and this is supported by many parties except for FF/PD. As for the work permit system it is a complete disaster and is riddled with abuse. This abuse has recevied widepsread coverage across both indymedia and the national media and how anybody could have missed this is beyond me. Your entire post is completely infactual and you should read a bit before posting infactualities. Most polls have shown that people support the right for asylum seekers to work and you should read what representatives say before attempting to put false words in their mouth. Do a bit of research please before posting.

by elspeth Fri Apr 21, 2006 19:25

Any alternative coalition will have Fine Gael and Labour at its heart. Fine Gael has no proposal, published or envisaged, to allow asylum-seekers to work. The FG policy is to speed-up the asylum-determination process so that applicants are dealt with quickly. There is overwhelming support among the FG grassroots and deputies that asylum-seekers not be allowed work. FG grassroots opinion is even harder than that of FF/PD against asylum-seekers being allowed work.

Labour has no proposal to change the present system, so one can take it that work permits for asylum-seekers is not something which the Labour leadership is going to allow mess up its prospect of a FF/Lab coalition.

The overwhelming opinion of the population is that far too few asylum-cheats are being deported. The only real poll on immigration issues in recent years was the citizenship referendum, and the clear message the people sent to the political elites is, "no more immigration scams".

Anyone at the present time, (when there is a growing concern among ordinary working people that LEGAL immigration is eroding their working conditions and security,) who believes there is any widespread desire that asylum-seekers (82% of whome will be determined to be bogus) should be allowed work, or that any government, present or prospective, will change the status-quo, needs to change their medication.

by SH Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00

Yet again elpseth you post complete infactualities. Both labour and fine gael have had spokespeople recently supporting the right of asylum seekers to work. The citizenship referendum was about citizenship nothing more and trying to claim it represents something else is about as true as the rest of your post. Polls in recent times have shown the population support asylum seekers being given the right to work. I asked you before to do some research before posting and stop trying to put words in other peoples mouths that they haven't said yet you haven't done this and continue with absolute nonsense. But please repeat it all again and again you are only convincing yourself.

by elspeth Sat Apr 22, 2006 20:10

Your problem is that you only talk with other members of the tiny fringe element who believe that the Irish state has no right to limit third-world immigration (The other tiny minority on the other extreme of this issue who believe that Ireland should be kept white and celtic suffers from a similar disability)

The fact is that there is no poll evidence that there is significant support for the general principal of allowing asylum-seekers to work. I challenge you to provide any reference to the contrary.

Fine Gael and Labour are broad churches (as is FF). There are individual politicians in all parties who hold all sorts of views. There is one Labour councillor in Cork who would detain all asylum-seekers pending determination of their claims.

I was referring to the stated policies and broad consensus of opinion among the parties concerned (FF and FG). What I said is manifestly accurate.

Ireland is inevitably going to have a more diverse society in the future. The first fundamental in furthering the cause of future inter-communal harmony is to reassure the indigenous population that the state has control over immigration. The second fundamental is to ensure that the positive consensus for immigration is not undermined by immigration-scams and illegality. The citizenship referendum has done all of us (Irish and immigrant), and our children , a major service by curtailing a scam which was undermining that consensus. To say that the massive pro-vote was on a narrow issue is to miss the point. The politicians certainly haven't.

Anyone who represents to asylum-seekers that this or any other likely Irish government is ever again going to change the present rule and allow asylum-seekers to take paid work is being needlessly cruel by raising false hopes.

by SH Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:07

Yet again elspeth. Both labour and Fine Gael support the UNHCR call for the right for asylum seekers to work as they do in other EU countries, as stated in the public pronouncements of both parties Justice spokespeople.. As for the polls they were in the Star newspaper, the business post and one other paper (possibly the mirror). These papers are hardly representative of a tiny fringe element. Your "opinion" of what labour and fine gael members believe is absolute nonsense and is contrary to reality, perhaps you should stop as suggested trying to put false words in people's mouths. It is an utterly ridiculous "debating" tactic . There are plenty of FF members and TD's who believe that asylum seekers should be allowed to work however you make no mention of that. keep your opinions just as opinions and stop trying to introduce them as fact. And as for who I talk to, you yet again introduce absolute nonsense. You have no idea who I talk to yet you continue with your fantasies about other people. I have discussed this issue with members of all parties and it is completely contradictory to your "consensus" What we can expect next is for you to respond with more dreams of what people say, think and what imaginary "consensus" there is. Also SH is the name not something else that you thought up.

by elspeth Mon Apr 24, 2006 21:23

You are incorrect in almost everything you assert as fact.

1. You name several newspapers. Guive me the references (polling organizations, dates of publication etc.)
I again say that there is no poll evidence whatsoever to indicate that even a substantial minority of the Irish electorate wishes to allow asylum-seekers to take paid work. Period. Fact.

2. It is not Fine Gael policy that asylum-seekers be allowed work. Period. Fact.

3. It is not Labour policy that asylum-seekers be allowed work. Labour has no policy on the issue. Period. Fact.

4. The FG justice spokesperson has not made any statement supporting the general prinnciple that asylum-seekers be allowed work.

5. I would be suprised if the Labour justice spokesperson had made such a statement. However, if you can provide a reference that is CHECKABLE, I am prepared to accept that such a personal viewpoint may have been issued.

6. No present or potential Irish government will change the existing regime. There is not a whit of evidence to the contrary. In fact the possibility of a change in the rule is daily becoming even less likely because:
1. All the major parties are acutely aware of what happened when John O'Donoghue allowed a partial amnesty.
2. Asylum-seekers are now having their claims determined within a few months, instead of years as previously (except for those who purposely delay the process by using the courts or by disappearing)
3. The main preoccupation of the politicians is how to protect the working-conditions of Irish workers from the effects of cheaper immigrant labour from Eastern Europe. Giving asylum-seekers a right to work pending determination of their claims is just not on the political radar.
4. The public is now pretty clued-in to the distinction between economic immigrants (which it supports, where legal, with some misgivings), Refugees, which it welcomes, and asylum-seekers. The public is acutely aware that the vast majority of asylum claims are found to be bogus (currently, 92%), and it has strong feelings about those who would cheat and undermine a system whose purpose is to provide sanctuary for genuine victims of oppression. Again, the opinion of the public is not that asylum-seekers should be allowed work, but how the determination -process can be speeded up, and bogus claimants deported.

You are seriously out of touch with reality if you think asylum-seekers will ever again be allowed work.

by SH Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:13

Yet again elspeth,

The polls were published two or three months after the citizenship referendum. They can be viewed at the Residents Against Racism stall between 12.30 and 2 o'clock every saturday at the bank of Ireland College green. They have the hard copy of the polls all laminated for your benefit. I do not have a scanner or a hard copy of it. The polls were commented on on this website aswell. So your period. fact spat is about as accurate as your posts.

There are plenty of policies spouted by Fine Gael and Labour spokespeople that aren't in their policy documents. You obviously are pretty clueless as to how a political party works. As for Labour I'm pretty sure this was voted on and passed at a Labour party conference. The Fine Gael spokesperson has made a public pronouncement supporting the UNHCR's call for the right to work for asylum seekers as in other EU countries as had several TD's and councillors from the party.
And the rest of your post is complete nonsense, your usual false opinion with you trying to portray them as fact. You are out of touch with the reality of the speed of the asylum system, the political parties, the public and also your statistics. Dream on elspeth I hope you are comfortable in that fantasy world of yours

by Cormac Sun Apr 30, 2006 18:36 As Co an Mhi

Labours policy on asylum is useless. Before the citizenship rererendum, Doctors at Maternity Hospitals in Dublin raised concerns over the number of Nigerians coming here and giving birth upon arrival. They were allowed to abuse the system prior to the citizenship referendum (which the majority voted for) and Labour's Evana Bacik was openly against it calling it 'racist' without any logical alternative to problem whatsoever.

If asylum seekers would like to become an integrated part of society, surely there should be an associated civic burden of responsibility that they themselves have to adopt? Something which many believe is lacking and maybe thats why it was no surprise why 70 percent voted for this referendum.

by elspeth Sun Apr 30, 2006 19:24

Yeah, sure!

Still no checkable references! That is because there are no polls done by any reliable polling organization whic suggests that asylum-seekers be allowed work (If RAR have produced its own 'poll' it would have the same credibility as all RAR emanations)

Again, all assertions - no hard checkable info. There is no official Labour or Fine Gael policy that asylum-seekers should be allowed work.

An asylum-seeker arriving in Ireland today can expect to have an interview with the ORAC within a few weeks, and a decision a few weeks afterwards. If the determination by the ORAC is negative, he or she will get a hearing before the RAT within about 8 weeks of the negative determination. The appeal decision is normally delivered within two months of the RAT hearing. Is that fast enough for you?

All you RAR people are doing in flogging this very dead horse is raising false hopes in the minds of failed asylum-seekers (Of course, successful asylum-seekers -aka refugees, DO have the right to work)