Good riddance to McDowell - now get rid of his policies

by From South Africa Thu Jun 21, 2007 21:54

I'm a South African engineer and i've been living in Ireland since 2001. I arrived here with my wife who is an IT Professional on a two year work autorisation. We had two kids aged 7 and 9 when we arrived and had another daughter in January of 2003. As mine and my wifes professions are in demand in Ireland, we would easily have completed the five years as required for citizenship by naturalisation. However we did apply for the right to reside due to our babies birth in the country. Ofcourse we were granted residency, but with restrictions. Amongst these is that we are to reside continuously in the country. Now if that is not a violation of our rights as human beings, then i dont know. It is our intention to remain in this country permanently, and i think it's time that not just Ireland, but the world will be mixed. A mixture of colours and nationalities is inevitable.

The Irish were amongst the very people that started the ball rolling many years ago when they joined the British forces in going around the world and colonising the very countries whose people the worl is now trying to keep at bay. As a matter of fact the irish playedan important role for the British in South Africa, they formed South Africas firstreal police force. Yes, the Irish enforced the rules of South Africas very first oppressers. see the following link

http://www.ireland.com/ancestor/magazine/articles/uhf_s...2.htm

Apart from that, we all know of the trek by the Irish to America, England, Australia, etc, during the famine and post famine. Should they have been let into these countries? YES, YES, YES. Why/? Because our human brothers and sisters needed help and us as fellow human beings should let people in need in. Just to show that people choose to be prejudice for no good reason, I read an article in the irish independent the other day, infact it was a letter to the editor and this guy stated that two percent of immigrants have learnt to use the Irish language, he stated that 98% didn't bother. He went on to say that tha's a sad statistic. Yes, i agree, but tell me writer, what is the percentage of Irish people using the language, isit more than two percent?

Another thing we should look at, is the amount of masters that left Ireland to sit at their throne in South Africa during our apartheid years.

What's going on in Ireland at the moment, is it that the Irish feel there's not enough resources to provide for them and the foreigner? Or is it an eye for an eye, the british and Americans treated you guys bad so you'll will treat you'll new arrivals bad.

I think the new Minister of Justice should make a deal with America, for every working Irishman in America given citizenship, One working foreigner in Ireland will be given the same. Yes. an eye forand eye.

by Niarnia Sun Jun 10, 2007 02:10

Maybe it would be educational if Residents Against Racism propose who they believe the next Minister for Justice should be.

There are 166 newly elected TDs to choose from.

by bj Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:21

Lt's not forget that the majority of Irish people voted to remove citizenship rights
from children born in Ireland if their parents are foreigners.
This was Ireland's most shameful day since the foundation of the state.
Racism was given national approval.
McDowell was reflecting, and acting on, the wishes of most Irish people.

by Observer Thu Jun 07, 2007 21:41

While I agree with Residents Against Racism in it's view that the Irish people are better off without the Michael McDowell, for a variety of reasons, including immigration reform, perhaps the argument could be made more substantive by the ommission of some dubious assertions.

For a start decisions in the asylum system are not made (at first instance by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner) by people who can be hired and fired at the sitting Minister's will. They are made by civil servants who are employees of the State. They are hired at junior level by the Civil Service Appointments Commission after fulfilling certain educational criteria and after the sucessfull completion of an entrance examination. They progress along the ranks of the Civil Service in the normal and their promotion, or lack thereof, are not at the discretion of the relevent Minister, but along defined criteria in place throughout the civil service. They can only be fired on the recommendation of their department's Secretary General, who is himself a Civil Servant. The Minister does not and cannot interfere in this process. Having knowledge of the system personally over several years I could honestly say that decisions at first instance are made impartially, however I might disagree with some of them over the years.

It is correctly stated, however, that decisions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal are made by Ministerial appointees, a system which is open to the sugestion of bias, and indeed I know of two members at least who have resigned over what they see as flaws in the system. I, understand however that the present system is to be altered in the forthcoming Immigration, Residence and Protection Act. We shall see how that works.

I would point out that in relation to an independant body like the Human Rights Commission making decisions on applications for asylum, the members of the Human Rights Commission are appointed by the Government at the proposal of the Minister for Justice. I am not sugesting for a moment that they are not independant in all their doings, they have proved this in the past, but why prefer one Government appointed body over another?

For information purposes, under international law, it is the OBLIGATION of the State under the refugee convention to determine asylum applications.How they do that, and do it fairly and transparently, is another question.

As for ending deportations, the writer seems to assume that anyone arriving in the State seeking protection, for whatever reason, should be welcomed and offered asylum. That surely is a somewhat dangerous suggestion. It is universally accepted that the natural outcome of an asylum system is that people will have their claim rejected. The obvious result will be deportation. Agreed, this has not always happened in a very humane manner. That should change, however, is not the logical result of such an "open border" policy that Irish citizens would resent the deluge of persons arriving here to live thus increasing the level of racism?Just look at the margin with which the Referendum on Citizenship passed to see the reality of my assertion.

Having researched the matter somewhat It would also seem that Ireland has a rejection rate on par with most European Countries. Unfortunatly it is also the case that two of the countries from whom we receive most asylum applications are not recognised internationally as refugee producing countries generally. It would be invidious to name them here so I will not. That is not to say of course that these countries do not produce refugees, it would seem however that internationally very view of these countries nationals are ever granted refugee status, no mater the country where they lodge their application.

I do not mean to take issue with the thrust of the writers post, I agree with it generally, particularly in the refusal of the State to let asylum seekers work whilst in the system. I would also say that the system needs radical reform to make it more transparent and fair. I just think that It would be argued better by being just a little more accurate in the assertions made.

by Timekeeper Thu Jun 07, 2007 17:54

2.30 pm, Thursday 7 June ???

Sorry, don't think I can make it - slight time factor.