Demonstration against deporations

by Jim Wed Jan 25, 2006 17:59

...more pic

passionate speech outside the Dail

by Trotwatch Wed Jan 25, 2006 18:20

Good to see the Labour banner being carried by asylum seekers. They recognise the work carried out on their behalf by Michael D , Joe Cosstello and Labour Youth. Its also great to see Aongus from SF at the rally. Keep it up. Theres grounds for LP / SF unity yet.

by Labour Watch Wed Jan 25, 2006 18:42

If in government will the Labour Party end ALL deportations and immigration controls into the state? No they won't. They are hypocrits for even attending the rally.

by Trotwatch Wed Jan 25, 2006 18:51

Were you at the rally?

Labour will be a junior partner in any coalition government and will not be in a position to dictate those terms. Labour Party TDs and Labour Youth support RAR and help Asylum Seekers with their problems. Do you?

If you have any doubts about the committment of Michael D, Joe Cosstello or LY to fighting racism then you can check it out with RAR. Now what did you do to fight racism today?

by barra - revoltvideo Wed Jan 25, 2006 21:15 revoltvideo at hushmail dot com www.revoltvideo.blogspot.com

Today we filmed footage for a short Indy Media documentary film we will be be making about this issue, over the coming months.

We hope to upload some of the footage of todays demo soon to indymedia.

by barra - revoltvideo Wed Jan 25, 2006 21:32 revoltvideo at hushmail dot com

anyone who wants to contribute to the project ( making a short documentary) please contact us

by Richey Wed Jan 25, 2006 21:32

If you don't want to get a ratty response like that, I suggest "Trotwatch" might not be the best handle. You are deliberately trying to provoke people, which has absolutely no place on a thread about anti-deportation campaigning

by Paul - Revolt Video Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:25 revoltvideo at hushmail dot com

This is a video report on yesterdays protest. We are working on a documentary on Deportation Issues so if you want to get involved with that send us an email.

Download
http://video.indymedia.org/download/%5BIndymedia%5D_(2006-01-26)_Somalian_Asylum.avi

Don't forget your Xvid!
http://www.koepi.org/XviD-1.1.0-30122005.exe

by Anti Racism Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:34

Daily Ireland has the protest splashed across it's front page this morning, which I think is pretty cool. Also good pic on their front, image of modern, multi-cultural Ireland...Lets keep it that way!!!!!

by Sideshowbob Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:41

What is it with all this anti deportation rallies?? Have yous never heard of democracy? The majority in this country support deportations of failed and bogus aliens and that was reflected in the last referendum. So why can't yous abide by the will of the majority instead of heckling anyone who says otherwise cause you will not defeat the majority and change the general public opinion by your constant rallies, pestering and annoyance...

by Krusty The Clown Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:49

Now you can see why I sacked Sideshowbob. He doesn't even understand what the Referendum was about. So how does Bob decide on whats a bogus "alien"? Is it based on the colour of their skin or their Ethnic origin?

As for democracy: a fundamental democratic right is to to go to the Dail and Government Departments to make your case.

by pat c Thu Jan 26, 2006 13:01

Why not form that party? Is it because the IPP and ICP have performed so dismally in elections?

by Peter Thu Jan 26, 2006 13:18

pat c,
Campaigning to stop every asylum seekers process when they are looking for asylum is complete nonsence. Can you just tell me why you seek to end this process? Do you not believe in the idea of having to fill out an application form?

by Sideshowbob Thu Jan 26, 2006 13:21

Since you sacked me from your show, sideshowbob has been bored so has taken to the net to console himself... the referendum was about the issue of the status of non national parents of children born here. However, it could also be viewed as a wider vote on the issue of immigration and asylum seeking in Ireland but i will concede that that can be argued and debated as it is not hard facts..
And no, bogus alien is not based on the colour of their skin or their Ethnic origin? It someone who enters or tries to enter a country illegally or under false pretences.. And yes, you have the right to march and demostrate but you can't force feed opinions to the rest of us...
I guess theres no chance of my old job back now, Krusty!!

by pat c Thu Jan 26, 2006 13:53

address the points i made in my (short) contribution. if you do, then i will respond to you.

by Peter Thu Jan 26, 2006 13:58

We won't bother going into discussing political parties for the moment now. The issue here is about asylum seekers and I simply asked you if you could just tell me why you seek to end this process? Do you not believe in the idea of having to fill out an application form?

by pat c Thu Jan 26, 2006 13:59

see my comments above. i willrespond to comments on what i wrote; not on what you want me to discuss.

by Peter Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:01

You wan't to leave the things out that you see counterproductive to your arguement. Why are you refusing to answer them?

by Krusty Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:02

Sorry Bob, I can't use you. You tried to kill some of my best fans. SideshowMel is doing a fine job.

You could try Bertie. I believe he has a vacancy for a racist jester now that Ivor Callelly has departed.

by John Maye Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:04

That seems so typical of you calling people who stand up for an immigration system 'racists' or other names.

by pat c Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:10

see above. I would be happy to discuss the lack of success of the ICP & IPP; and to also discuss any other such groups you intend to form.

by Peter Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:14

"I would be happy to discuss the lack of success of the ICP & IPP; and to also discuss any other such groups you intend to form."

I'm not a member of the "ICP" and "IPP".

by pat c Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:20

"I'm not a member of the "ICP" and "IPP"."

Well in that case, and presuming you dont intend to form a new such group, we dont have anything to discuss. Have a nice day.

Oh, BTW, today is Australia Day, known to the Aborigines as Invasion Day. But I guess thats one Migration you support. Or do you want a few million of Irish descent back?

by Peter Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:24

"Well in that case, and presuming you dont intend to form a new such group, we dont have anything to discuss. Have a nice day."

I'm not a member of any such group and I don't intend to 'form' a group. You didn't answer my questions. The issue here is about asylum seekers and I simply asked you if you could just tell me why you seek to end this process? Do you not believe in the idea of having to fill out an application form?

by pat c Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:31

you seem to have a fixation with forms. i didnt raise forms in my contribution. if you would like to fill out some forms then you could go to your local tax or social welfare office.

by Peter Thu Jan 26, 2006 14:36

"you seem to have a fixation with forms"

No, I asked you why you didn't agree in the idea of asylum seekers having to fill out an apllication form for asylum? Or would you just give them it anyway without having to go through any such appplication process? !

by freedomofinformation! Thu Jan 26, 2006 18:23

Irish Refugee Council:

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/refugee_stats/stats05.html

Statistics on asylum applications, refusals, appeals, deportatation and country of origin of applicants.

by Obsever2 Thu Jan 26, 2006 18:56

"Section 11B of the Refugee Act 1996 requires the RAC and the RAT, as the case may be to have regard to a broad range of criteria in assessing the credibility of an application. These include:

* accounts of identity documents including loss and destruction,
* travel history to the State,
* failure to seek protection in the first safe country

For instance, some 88% of the 1174 Nigerian nationals without documents stated to ORAC that they travelled by air at some stage in their journey. Large numbers of other nationals are also arriving without travel documents but indicate to ORAC that they travelled by air: Romania 40%; DR Congo 100%; Ukraine 42%; Moldova 33%.

It is almost impossible, for instance, for Nigerians to travel to Europe by air without such documents. There are no direct scheduled air flights between Ireland and Nigeria. The inescapable conclusion is that destruction and concealment of travel documents is a central feature of a well developed trafficking strategy."

Excerpt from McDowell statement of June 7th 2005.

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


In the excerpt from McDowells statement above it is obvious that the belief that there is a criminal conspiracy involved in the numbers of Nigerians arriving in Ireland to claim asylum. This is san issue that has been known about for some time within the Dept of Justice and has been attempted to be raised in various forums. Inevitably however, those who raise this serious issue are branded racist, which is convienient for those who do not want this discussed.This is not an issue of racism, it is an issue of criminality.

by obsever2 Thu Jan 26, 2006 19:00

The link doesn't seem to work, but the full statement can be accessed through:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=nigerian+abuse+of+refugee+system&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

by observer2 Thu Jan 26, 2006 19:08

"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."

From the same document as above.

The concerns raised in Ireland regarding Nigerian asylum seekers have and are being raised worldwide.

coincidence? I think not.

by SH Thu Jan 26, 2006 19:19

The issue is whether they traveled from an EU country. The fact that they flew at some stage of the journey is irrelevant as they could have flown in Africa to another African country. Outside of the EU their are very few countries which Ireland recognise as safe. The Irish government doesn't even recognise Nigeria as safe. If there is no proof that they were in another EU country than their word should be taken. Remember people are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. The issue of trafficking is a serious issue and more needs to be done about it, many people have ended up in the sex industry as a result, many have died in the process, and many have quite simply dissappeared (off boats)

Quoting McDowell is a not a good strategy, most people on this website, yourself included, know what a dodgy character McDowell is. McDowell has lied repeatedly about the asylum system, depending on whether he has been attacked or praised. And has contradicted himself quite a few times.

Yesterdays demo focused mainly on Somalian asylum seekers, who are all receivng deportation orders aswell as Afghani's, Sudanese and Iranians. The issue isn't just about Nigerians, the issue is the asylum system and how it is completley unworkable and rejects applications no matter how war torn and unsafe their countries are.

by report Thu Jan 26, 2006 19:28

http://dailyireland.televisual.co.uk/home.tvt?_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=19235&opp=1

by observer2 Thu Jan 26, 2006 19:32

It is not just McD, there is international concern regarding the use of the asylum system as a means of economic migration by claimants originating in Nigeria. It should be clear to anyone that abuse of the system in such a way makes it much more difficult for genuine claimants. As for taking someones word, what you are suggesting is that we are to believe a person who enters ireland but didnt fly here or come by ferry(from another eu country) that they just materialised or swam?

As an aside, the Republic of South Africa is considered a safe country, there are a number of flights direct from Lagos daily to R.S.A cities yet people decide to trek to Ireland?

come on SH, look at the facts.

by SH Thu Jan 26, 2006 19:45

You are not looking at the facts. You have a theory with no actual evidence to back it up. People are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

Also its not just Nigerians that get turned down. Somalians, Sudanese, Afghani's, Iranians. Are these all economic migrants, or do you accept that they are from war torn countries and need our protection?
If so why are they all being rejected for asylum?
Its because the asylum system does not work. It is all about deportations, not protection

by Peter Thu Jan 26, 2006 19:53

"If so why are they all being rejected for asylum?
Its because the asylum system does not work. It is all about deportations, not protection"

Any facts or links to back this up? Any proof?

by Gerry Thu Jan 26, 2006 20:22

I was just looking at a few of the pics here on this page and in one of them there is a sign saying 'no deportations'

What in gods name is the alternative??
Let everyone in? Abandon all our passport controls?

by SH Thu Jan 26, 2006 20:26

The proof is the deportation orders that they are all being given. I would not have the time to scan in the thousands of deportation orders.

by Peter Thu Jan 26, 2006 20:30

Why would you not be able to back up what you said with some evidence? I would like to see this evidence myself too.

by observer2 Fri Jan 27, 2006 01:05

Firstly peter, SH is correct about the deportation of Afghanis, somali etc. The link above to the refugee council site gives all the stats. My issue is with the refusal of RAR and others to acknowledge what is internationallly known, written aout academically and blatantly obvious from even a cursory glance at the stats, and that is the issue of the abuse of asylum systems worldwide for economic migration. There are serious concerns in this country in regard to this issue, yet everytime anyone raises it they are shot down as "racist". As I have already said on this site, this is not an issue of racism it is an issue of an international conspiracy to use the asylum system for economic migration by claimants originating in one country. It is not just the experience of the Irish system it is a common experience across Europe. Once again, it is impossible to fly direct from Nigeria to Ireland, but it is possible to fly direct to R.S.A . So if fleeing persecution and fear of death or torture would you not take the fastest way out? The answer is simple, R.S.A does not present the economic attraction that the E.U and especially Ireland does.

Fighting injustice is one thing, defending wrongdoing is a different matter altogether.

by SH Fri Jan 27, 2006 09:49

A lot of the concerns you have would be eradicated if we allowed asylum seekers to work while their application was being processed. You should ask yourself also why would economic migrants from Nigeria come to Ireland where they have very little chance of getting refugee status? If they were all rich middle class business men/women why would they come over here, not be allowed to work, be forced to live on €19.10 a week, share a room in a hostel with up to 10 other adults, dispersed around the country, and suffer discrimination.

Also what proportion of Nigerian asylum seekers do you believe are economic migrants?

And it still wouldn't explain why asylum seekers from other countries were being turned down in high numbers also. It is a problem with the system not the applicants.

by Peter Fri Jan 27, 2006 14:36

Observer,
I agree that the abuse of our asylum system by economic asylum seekers must stop. And yes, anyone who does try to defend an immigration policy is labelled a racist. I just can't figure out what the RAR's alternative would be on this issue. They wan't to let everyone in and to be granted asylum regardless how many and that is something totally ridiculous.

by SH Fri Jan 27, 2006 14:55

The questions asked to observer2 apply to you also. Could you please answer them. All you have is a theory with no concrete evidence to back up your assertions. As for the numbers you talk about, the numbers of asylum seekers coming into Ireland is relatively small. We have far more immigrants coming in here from the EU than we do have asylum seekers so talk of huge numbers coming is nothing less than a scare tactic with no evidence to back it up. Allow asylum seekers to work while their applications are being processed and that would take away a lot of the talk of abuse.

But please do answer those questions. Also don't get Observer2 and observer mixed up, they are different people with widely different ideologies.

by to PETER Fri Jan 27, 2006 15:46

Must you look at this issue in black and white? Since you have access to the internet it won’t be difficult for you to research the facts. To suggest that “economic seeker” and “asylum seeker” go together. In this assumption you fail to release that “many not all” asylum seekers are here looking for “protection”, and their first priority is to “survive”. I

Since our population can not relate to the suffering of a “proportion” of asylum seekers, what they have endured, we become cold (like yourself) to their reasons for seeking asylum here. To us terms like War , Hunger mean only words, pictures, and television its not apart of our life’s experience.

There should be a fair process in place ( which we do not have) to distinguish between the reasons why people come here be it for economic reasons or for genuine “asylum” reasons. There is only two ways this can go
1) One is closing the borders to asylum seekers and ignoring their plight with a us against them attitude
2) International cooperation researching and finding out why the world ( majority of the world) is in demise, and find a remedy for that so people of this earth have at least a hope for a future

Unless we ask ourselves hard questions about the current state of our world and why people are moving to the industrial countries for all sorts of reasons, “mainly this world order is not working and as the industrial counties drain other counties dry to their finally demise ultimately bringing us down as well ”.

what can our considerable influence can do about it?. The only solution we will have will be some fascist type one unless the next revolution happens in our minds collectively.


SMASH YOUR TV AND SEEK REALITY

by Indy Fan Fri Jan 27, 2006 15:58

Can people try to remember that Indymedia is a Newswire not a bulletin Board. The site exists to report news not for slanging matches.

by observer2 Fri Jan 27, 2006 21:24

Firstly i have never suggested that all applications from Nigeria are false, or that all applictions from Nigeria are from businness people. What I am suggesting is the following:

There are serious concerns raised not only in Ireland but globally regarding the abuse of the asylum system as a method of economic migration by applicants from Nigeria. This issue has been known for some time.

I contend that to defend this continued abuse is not only foolish, but brings the asylum system into disrepute among the citizens of this state. I also contend that the bogus applications make it more difficult for genuine cases from Nigeria and elsewhere. So long as RAR refuse to face up to this issue they cannot be taken seriously.

I am not opposed to immigration into Ireland or the granting of work visas(i believe the current system is flawed and should be replaced by a green card system similar to other countries) to people regardless of country of origin. I am not opposed to a proper asylum system and I believe that our system is , comparitively, pretty good because the outgoing UNHCR rep (2001-2006) described it as such and a study of other systems in Europe show it to be so.

The argument about letting asylum seekers work during the period that their application is being processed is flawed, it is almost guaranteed such a system it would attract further abuse from economic migrants. The system has been speeded up considerably in the past 12 months as can be seen from the Irish Refugee Council figures. This will partly allievate the problem asylum seekers face.


With regard to SH question as to why so many people would come here from Nigeria knowing the failed application rate, I would reply " exactly, how come they didn't take a direct scheduled flight from Lagos to R.S.A? It's safe, it's closer geographically and it's also closer culturally." There is an issue SH, it cannot be avoided and at some point if RAR are to be taken seriously they must address it. Racism is wrong, so is abusing an asylum system (designed to protect the most vulnerable) for purely personal economic reasons.

by SH Sat Jan 28, 2006 14:57

To describe our system as comparitevely good is a flawed argument. Asylum systems across the EU are a disaster. Just because we are better than some other countries in some respects does not justify our own disaster of a system.

Allowing asylum seekers to work would not attract more economic migrants. There is absolutely no basis for that argument. In other EU countries asylum seekers are allowed to work and previously in Ireland this was the case, also you mentioned the outgoing UNHCR rep and she recommended that asylum seekers be allowed to work . You still haven't answered the question of what percentage of Nigerian asylum seekers are economic migrants and you still have only a theory with nothing concrete to back it up.

As for the system being speeded up i.e. fast tracking. Fast tracking has been widely criticised by all the NGO's in the sector including the Refugee council. It is the government trying to increase deportations, rather than properly analysing their cases. In fact since fast tracking the number of asylum cases accepted have dropped drastically. It is not a good system it is a further step away from having a good asylum system and it does nothing to address the serious problems asylum seekers face.


Also you still haven't answered why Somalians, Afghani's, Sudanes and Iranians amongst others are being rejected for asylum. It is because the system is completely focused on deportations not the human rights of applicants. You focus on Nigerians as if people from these countries were the only applicants that were being turned down for asylum. And also you still haven't adequately addressed why economic migrants would use the asylum system when they have very little chance of success and even less if they were from Nigeria. As for the RSA we have refugee's from RSA so lets no pretend that its a great country.

by Peter Sat Jan 28, 2006 18:33

Sh,
I am still waiting for you to answer my question. Since you ask others to back up their statements with 'concrete' evidence, then why are you unwilling to back up what you said with some evidence?

To refresh, your quote was : 'If so why are they all being rejected for asylum?Its because the asylum system does not work. It is all about deportations, not protection'

Now can you prove this? Provide me with some links in your proof.

by facts only Sun Jan 29, 2006 17:49

Some Nigerians, Somalis, Afgans and others are being rightly deported because they have been found not to be refugees. While nobody knows all the details of their cases it is most likely that they have been turned down because they did not claim asylum in the first safe country they entered. If they did not do this they are by definition of the Geneva convention not refugees and are thus illegal immigrants. If illegal immigrants refuse to leave the state voluntarily with financial help from the Irish taxpayer, they place further burden on the taxpayer by forcing the state to deport them. Nobody can really disagree with this system unless the support an immigration free for all which would be wholly wrong , undemocratic and totally contrary to the wish of the Irish people.

Just because we have asylum seekers from RSA does not mean that they are genuine refugees as you have stated. They are bogus. They are economic migrants. RSA is internationally recognised as a safe country .The UN recognises it. Thousands of Zimbabwians have fled to RSA. SH your credibility is zero.

by SH Mon Jan 30, 2006 09:46

Peter,

I have asked you questions and you have refused to answer. I have already answered your question and the proof is in the statistics that observer2 produced. I will not scan in thousands of deportation orders when the proof is already on this thread. Now its time for you to answer the questions that I asked.

As for facts only. Your thread is bogus. The asylum seekers are not bogus they are fleeing war torn countries. As for Ireland not being the first EU country that they landed in, you have absolutely no proof to back you up. You are making false claims with absolutely no facts at all to back you up. We have refugee's from RSA. Their claims were successfull, our own disaster of an asylum system recognised this. Your claims of bogus are only true in relation to your own bogus post.

by Peter Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:15

"As for Ireland not being the first EU country that they landed in, you have absolutely no proof to back you up".

So you are saying that they flew directly to Ireland from Lagos?! Even though no such flights exist...!

How would it be humanly possible that Ireland would be the first EU Country they landed in, looking at the Geographical location of this country? Even if they were brought here in the back of a Lorry, it would be impossible to get to Ireland without having to pass through Britain or Europe. That is completly obvious and it doesn't need to be proven. But certainly I would like to see your proof, that you previously declined in another question I asked you to back up from a quote you made: 'If so why are they all being rejected for asylum?Its because the asylum system does not work. It is all about deportations, not protection'.

Now can you prove this?

by observer2 Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:28

"An analysis of claims from those seeking protection who have been processed under the accelerated procedure and who have been found not to be in need of protection illustrate a significant number of common grounds such as:

* Many cite fears of persecution from a secret cult as the basis of their claims. Other reasons for seeking asylum which were cited include:
* 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;
* Fears persecution as he lost money which belonged to his boss
* Fear that a former employer may kill her and place body parts around his house;
* Fear of persecution for failing to bring home the bodies of deceased family members killed in a fire;
* Male members of tribe carry out ritual sacrifices of children."
........................................................................................................................................................................................
The above is a statement giving some of the reasons the dept of justice encountered. A significant number of common grounds means that a number of dsifferent applicants used the same reason for seeking asylum. As you can see they range from the absurd to the ridiciulous.

by SH Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:13

Again I will repeat myself for the benefit of someone who cannot read the the posts on this thread and the numerous other threads where this issue has been dealt with. The issue is whether they have been in another EU country. If they have they get deported under the Dublin Convention. If they haven't we process their cases. It doesn't matter what you believe if you don't have proof. As for the proof I have repeatedly answered you rquestion. The proof is in the deportation orders made. I have repeated this several times. I am still awaiting an answer to the questions I asked of you. How come you have steadfastly refused to answer those questions?

Observer2 McDowell was questioned on those comments. He said he did not have the numbers of people who used those. The last one in particular is currently under a judicial review and shows serious problems in relation to the Gardai in a death of a young woman and her baby in a fire in Dublin. As for tribal customs, there are some pretty weird tribal customs in Nigeria and there have been many who have been granted refugee status on those claims. McDowell made these claims while refusing to give details of how many people made those claims and also not allowing those who have made those claims a chance to back them up.

by Peter Mon Jan 30, 2006 13:55

"The proof is in the deportation orders made".

There is no proof to be found in the deportation orders. If you were to ask an asylum seeker which first safe country he/she landed in within the EU, of course they're going to say Ireland was. This is just one example of how some lie while they are claiming asylum when its obvious that they had to cross through Britain or another European country to get here.
How could they get to Ireland without having to cross through another country bearing in mind the Geographical location of Ireland?? Ireland is an island cut off from mainland Europe and in order to get here (either by Plane or by Ferry) one would have to pass through another EU country once they have arrived in Europe.

by SH Mon Jan 30, 2006 14:44

Once again Peter you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. All you have is a theory. It is our duty under International and national law to process their claims unless the Dublin Convention applies. There are deportation orders made under the Dublin Convention, and if an asylum seeker is found to have passed through another EU country then they are deported under that convention. All you have is a theory with no evidence to back it up, and it is easy to get to Ireland without passing through the EU first, plenty of people have.

Also why have you consistently refused to answer my questions. I have had to ask you several times to answer them and you have steadfastly refused. Why is this?

I suppose it is easier just for you to make claims without any evidence to back it up.

by Peter Mon Jan 30, 2006 20:36

"There are deportation orders made under the Dublin Convention, and if an asylum seeker is found to have passed through another EU country then they are deported under that convention".

So I take it that you are finally agreeing that those who have passed through another EU country first should be sent back to that first safe country? Thats good, at least you're seeing that this is the case afterall.. So why have you campaigned strongly to stop asylum seekers being deported back to these first EU countries?

"and it is easy to get to Ireland without passing through the EU first, plenty of people have".

Are there direct flights between Nigeria and Ireland? No, there aren't so when you ask an asylum seeker who lands in Ireland which first country they passed through first, of course they're all going to say it was Ireland when its obvious it wasn't. Also, Nigerian asylum seekers, (as observer 2 has already said) who go to South Africa and fly direct to Ireland are not arriving in Ireland as a first safe country. South Africa is an internationally recognized safe country so that is the first safe country they would have passed through and not Ireland.

Therefore, they could asylum there......

by SH Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:26

Peter I am quite amazed at your last post. It has displayed a breathtaking ignorance of what has been said on this thread. In fact it seems to me that you are reading an entirely different thread or just making things up in that little head of yours. First of all I said that if an asylum seeker were found to have passed through another EU country they get deported under the Dublin Convention. Now there are very few deportations under the Dublin Convention, less than 50 per year. So you have based your entire argument on less than 50 people a year, a rather stupid basis for an argument involving over 4,000 people a year. Also I never said that I suppoorted deportations under the Dublin Convention, you just made that up in that little head of yours. What I said was it would depend on the case in question. And there are very few countries that Ireland recognise as safe, very few at all outside the EU so claimants can pass through multitudes of countries before they get here without having to enter a safe country. Now Peter you are still refusing to answer my questions. I have repeatedly asked you to answer them. Why are you still refusing to answer them? How many times have I to ask before you answer them?

by Observer2 Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:08

Up to the end of November 2005:

* 114 leave to remain applications had been successful,
* 370 deportations carried out and
* 309 persons had voluntarily repatriated.

370 people were deported last year SH, out of over (as you say) 4,000applicants. Hardly a system geared to deportation. Do any of you look at the actual stats?Or is it just a case of make it up as you go along?

Also it would be interesting to know why this subject is being debated, over and over again, on three different threads? Is it a ploy? Is it to cause confusion? Is it to ensure at least one thread is near the top of the comments list? Or is it just an abuse of the imc system?Is it in order to lose the actual info posted?
To me it looks like a propoganda ploy on behalf of RAR.

Nothing new is being said on either side, just the same old stuff regurgitated.

The actual facts are there to see at the Irish Refugee Council site. Try reading and analysing them instead of talking off the top of your head.

Also there is an interesting news report in yesterdays I.T regarding the abuse of the PPS numbers..............and the fraudulent use of these PPS numbers.

by observer2 Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:32

Key statistics in relation to Asylum are available on the following web sites

Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner:
www.orac.ie

Refugee Appeals Tribunal:
www.gov.ie/refappeal

UNHCR :
www.unhcr.ch

Irish Refugee Council:
www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/

and for work permit info:
www.entemp.ie/labour/workpermits/statistics.htm

Just for those interested in the facts rather than their own ego driven opinions.

by SH Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:18

Your accusations of these threads turning into a "propoganda ploy on behalf of RAR." are utterly unfounded. It takes a lot of time to make comments and to check indymedia for new comments and it is completely false of you to suggest that it is an attempt to bring it top of the comments list. The events that the threads were advertising are long over and there would be absolutely nothing to gain from wasting my own time commenting on these threads. You are correct these threads are just a constant regurgitation of the same issues. I have commented on this and I have asked people to read through the other threads instead of regurgitating the same stuff over and over. You seem to wish RAR should not answer questions and instead leave the usual trolls to constantly attack our positions and quite frankly just make stuff up, this will not be allowed to happen.

As for the stats I constantly look at them. If you look at the stats you will see that an overwhelming majority of cases were unsuccessful and deportation orders issued, only 114 leave to remain applications had been succesfull, hardly a system geared to protection of vulnerable people.

by Peter Tue Jan 31, 2006 14:37

"Also I never said that I suppoorted deportations under the Dublin Convention"

You've just said it.... You wan't to scrap every single immigration rule for asylum seekers in this country. Finally, you've decided to own up to that one. If you don't support deportations under the Dublin convention, then what do you think about an immigration policy as a whole? A waste of time?! That would almost certainly be your opinion I know.

Claiming that "it would depend on the case in question" is just a cover up for the fact that nothing less than the complete scrapping of our immigration laws would do in your strategy. Its just not going to happen... Its unrealistic to demand that every asylum seeker should be given indefinite stay without them having to go through a process of application. If some asylum seekers get deported, they can either be sent back to the first safe country they arrived in within the E.U or be sent back to their home country. An asylum seeker can only be sent back to the first safe country when it has been proven that this country was the first safe country he/she landed in, and not otherwise.

by Peter Tue Jan 31, 2006 14:43

SH,
Wasn't this the time you were against the deportation of failed asylum seekers back to the first safe country they arrived in within the EU??

The link below displays this article

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73305

by SH Tue Jan 31, 2006 14:49

Another spurious posting Peter that completley ignores what I posted, completely ignores what RAR's position is despite it having been posted numerous times before and also still fails to answer the questions that I have repeatedly asked you to answer. Why don't you answer the questions instead of making up what I posted?

As for your link, there is nothing in there about deportations under the Dublin Convention nor was there anybody deported on that flight under the Dublin convention. Another spurious post from you. How long more will you keep this going?