Asylum seekers cost P-PARS times 2+ EVERY YEAR

[Civil Civilian]

Joking arent you?

There are so many Nigerians here because they have the money to get over here in the first place and are not genuine asylum seekers. Just because Nigeria is a sh*t hole doesn't mean we have any responsibility to house and feed them no more than we have a responsibility to house and feed the population of the Belarus either. Or Bosnia or Albania or etc etc etc.

Being from a sh*t hole does not entitle you to a house and welfare in Ireland. Or it bloody shouldn't do. There are no legitimate Nigerians in this country except the ones that applied for work visas and got them. The rest of them are parasitic sponging wastes of space.

Not joking. Surely if asylum seekers from Nigeria are successful and gain refugee status then they were genuine asylum applicants. If we don't believe that, then you don't really buy into the legal process. The ones who have not been successful are deported after legal challenges. In the asylum process, the applicant has to prove there is a case and if they do then the Irish state grants them refugee status. Ireland signed up to this process just like we signed up to the European Union or any other international agreement.

[walrusgumble]

Not joking. Surely if asylum seekers from Nigeria are successful and gain refugee status then they were genuine asylum applicants. If we don't believe that, then you don't really buy into the legal process. The ones who have not been successful are deported after legal challenges. In the asylum process, the applicant has to prove there is a case and if they do then the Irish state grants them refugee status. Ireland signed up to this process just like we signed up to the European Union or any other international agreement.

If they were successful, they would be genuine.

But look at the stats on the ORAC and Refappeal website, there are not genuine. Look at the UK Home Office Guidelines that are updated, invidiually for each common country. (see their website) This guide line, for example shows the actual common claims made by these people every year - they are rubbish. That is the point that mbaros is getting at. You only need to go to courts.ie and bailii.org and plug out the Judicial Review judgments in most of these cases, which provide a lengthy and detailed history of their claims. Rubbish.,

But as you indirectly point out, they are entitled to due process and they can't be refused entry. (I felt sorry for McDowell when he got into trouble for the "cock and bull" comment") The issue is dealing with them as quickly and fairly as possible and not rack up the costs.

Bar, EU legislation on this area (which only deals with HOW to determine a case, and is only minimum standards) the other International Treaties like Geneva, are not binding in the sense that an authority can force Ireland to take in more. Nor can they take any action.

In light of the problems in Italy and Greece regarding the treatment of asylum seekers, it is pretty clear that the other EU states are not so forthcoming in their obligations to take in a few more, not even Sweden (who has become more hard line than previous)

[MrD011]

its crazy , in my own area the government have been renting a Hotel for asylum seekers for the last 10 years .

[walrusgumble]

its crazy , in my own area the government have been renting a Hotel for asylum seekers for the last 10 years .

The hotel owner only too delighted that they did. The Dutch use to send them into a prison type detention centre.

If the country can't process a few thousand applications each year, bear in mind that is their only job (bar at appeal , many are double jobbing as barristers doing other work) then there was not much hope. There was a time when Judicial Reviews were successful, because the decision makers had no training or experience in doing this work. Now of course all the tricks in the book have ended, why is there such a ridiculous back log still in the courts?

[Civil Civilian]

If they were successful, they would be genuine.

But look at the stats on the ORAC and Refappeal website, there are not genuine. Look at the UK Home Office Guidelines that are updated, invidiually for each common country. (see their website) This guide line, for example shows the actual common claims made by these people every year - they are rubbish. That is the point that mbaros is getting at. You only need to go to courts.ie and bailii.org and plug out the Judicial Review judgments in most of these cases, which provide a lengthy and detailed history of their claims. Rubbish.,

But as you indirectly point out, they are entitled to due process and they can't be refused entry. (I felt sorry for McDowell when he got into trouble for the "cock and bull" comment") The issue is dealing with them as quickly and fairly as possible and not rack up the costs.

Bar, EU legislation on this area (which only deals with HOW to determine a case, and is only minimum standards) the other International Treaties like Geneva, are not binding in the sense that an authority can force Ireland to take in more. Nor can they take any action.

In light of the problems in Italy and Greece regarding the treatment of asylum seekers, it is pretty clear that the other EU states are not so forthcoming in their obligations to take in a few more, not even Sweden (who has become more hard line than previous)

If the claims turn out to be false, then they are false and deportation follows after due process. You use the terms 'quickly' and 'fairly' but we have to make sure the quickness does not compromise the fairness. Now, one look at the reports into conditions for asylum seekers would suggest that the backlog of cases are doing them no favours especially for genuine applicants.

The point that I made before that regardless of any previous failed claims, we cannot be judging cases on the nationality of the asylum applicant but rather the individual circumstances of that person or family. While it may to tempting to try and combat bogus applications by using nationality as a factor, if it leads to biased decision making, then injustice and mistakes would likely follow. It would be a bit like trying a person from Crumlin and from Donnybrook on the same charge and saying that the person from Donnybrook is more likely or less likely to be innocent.

As for the legal costs, even Alan Shatter has seen that it is the legal profession that are in need of reform regarding this. We also have to remember that by making the conditions for asylum seekers more draconian (as you mentioned with the Dutch process), we risk putting more duress on genuine applicants. The law is designed to protect the innocent first and foremost and that is not a liberal policy, it is a legal requirement in any modern country.

Your last point raises an issue of an EU wide asylum policy and while the EU have attempted to bring uniformity, in the case of Belgium and Greece recently, this has proven not to be the case.

[Racist]

Some good points but if we allowed genuine Asylum Seekers to work, it would not only bring in tax revenue, it would also combat the cycle of unemployment among refugees. Not a popular option but considering that genuine asylum seekers will become permanent members of society, it is not beneficial to keep them in a cycle of unemployment by direct provision.

How do you tell who is a genuine asylum seeker, in order to allow them to work? Allowing asylum seekers to work will only encourage more people to seek asylum, as it would be like getting a work visa for a number of years. The majority of asylum applications are bogus. It's quiet obvious no one in fear for their life is going to travel thousands of miles,pass through other safe countries in Africa, and Europe, to come to Ireland.

[walrusgumble]

Some good points but if we allowed genuine Asylum Seekers to work, it would not only bring in tax revenue, it would also combat the cycle of unemployment among refugees. Not a popular option but considering that genuine asylum seekers will become permanent members of society, it is not beneficial to keep them in a cycle of unemployment by direct provision.

The Asylum System, is an avenue for Third Country Nationals to seek protection, due to claims that they have been persecuted in their home country. The Asylum System is not the correct avenue for Third Country Nationals to seek employment. Why should work be given to someone who, it is later proven, that they don't deserve either Refugee Status or Subsidiary Protection?

There has been a justified distrust in this system because a majority of cases, when you look at COI and the Country of Origin, are found, in many cases (not all) not only to have been refused asylum, but also to have their cases declared utterly unfounded.

No other modern EU country , I believe, (willing to be corrected) offers temporary employment to asylum seekers. Why? It will only further increase the flow of immigrants who can't or won't seek to obtain the correct visas, by using the asylum system (Can't be refused entry) in order to get into Europe

You want a solution, the only avenue is to try and cut down on the ridiculous delay span it takes to get through the whole procedure, which, in cases where they are genuine cases, will only take under a year, anyway (ie ORAC and if refused, RAT) For other genuine cases that do get refused, and justifiably go to the High Court and then back to RAT, nothing we can do about that as the court list takes a mind of its own.

[walrusgumble]

If the claims turn out to be false, then they are false and deportation follows after due process

It does not happen in practice, ie they actually do get deported after due process. People assist them in evading. The full implementation of the law (as is present) or amendment, should punish those responsible for this. Failure to attend the GNIB when requested should mean automatic arrest (and actual implementation) THis should actually happen, but it does not in practice, due to resources and the lack of political stomach to put a minority like Residents against Racism in its place.

. You use the terms 'quickly' and 'fairly' but we have to make sure the quickness does not compromise the fairness.

You are correct, but I assumed people would note this. I also understand this is a common criticism of the pro immigration groups (that do at least, know what they are talking about) I am referring however, to an Independent Group (independent from Justice, current proposals don't really provide that) that consider both the asylum case and Subsidiary Protection, in one hearing, following the usual requirements. And an appeal mechanism. It may reduced the time delays that are seen in the current system.

Now, one look at the reports into conditions for asylum seekers would suggest that the backlog of cases are doing them no favours especially for genuine applicants.

The backlog of cases is primarily due to the fact that everyone appeals to RAT from the ORAC, even most of the cases, which are crap. To be fair to them (asylum seekers) it seems ORAC dismiss cases out of hand - waste. Another reason is partly due to the unnecessary y Judicial Review cases (genuine people may need to go to JR, but are waiting around due to caseload - nothing ORAC and RAT can do about this) Lawyers are partly to blame for this.

The point that I made before that regardless of any previous failed claims, we cannot be judging cases on the nationality of the asylum applicant but rather the individual circumstances of that person or family.

I am not prejuding. I am basing my opinion, on the facts of other cases. It is very common that people of various countries, uncanny, have an almost word for word similar type of case. The UK Guidelines (cases in the UK) surprisinly are very similar to IRish cases.

But, you are correct, prejuding is a sign of unfair hearing, and can be Judicially Reviewed.

However, I explained COI on the basis that if you have problems in certain countries, that person COULD turn to either the Police or higher Office to seek help. If the matter is against an non state actor, as many cases are, you could easily, especially in large countries, successfully relocate to another area in their country (internal relocation). These are two issues or hurdles you must also prove ie you can't return because you won't get adequate protection.

You have to use COI in order to assess whether they are telling the truth (ie ask questions about country) This assists in giving the objective decision.

You read Nigerian COI, bar maybe the Delta Region and the North (if you are Christian - but then you could always go South), what other problems are there, if you are an ordinary person?

It does not matter, many of these guys trip over themselves at Interview stage when they give answers to questions that are inconsistent with questionnaire.

While it may to tempting to try and combat bogus applications by using nationality as a factor

It would have been helpful if you had read what was said properly as oppose to imagining it. No one says a case should be decided by nationality. What was said was, in order to challenge people who refuse to accept the concept of "bogus asylum cases" was to point out to them, look at the cases that were refused, look where they are from. No more

If what you suggested was adopted, then such a proposal has failed miserably, as the numbers now claiming asylum has reduced primarily due to the economic climate, and not whether a country takes a particular stance on a country. But again, you are correct in what you have said, but that is not what was said.

, if it leads to biased decision making, then injustice and mistakes would likely follow.

No one suggested this. But, it is an obvious outcome if cases where decided solely on the basis of country or on the basis of other cases. I would imagine that is obvious to everyone.

It would be a bit like trying a person from Crumlin and from Donnybrook on the same charge and saying that the person from Donnybrook is more likely or less likely to be innocent.

Again, no said what you suggested. What is said , in argument, is to point out the problems in the system. There is a minority who complain about Ireland's small approval rate, compared to other EU countries (which themselves is also slowing down) The mention of these countries is only to point out the majority of Ireland's cases ie ************************e and from applicant's from safe countries. It was not mentioned to propose a way in how cases are decided. That method is safe and fine. We are complaining about the length of time it takes for due process. There are better and more effective systems.

As for the legal costs, even Alan Shatter has seen that it is the legal profession that are in need of reform regarding this.

There is nothing in Shatter's proposals about judges awarding costs against lawyers for bringing bad cases, (ie where the law is already clearly confirmed) The 2008 Immigration Bill had a proposal on this, but met with protest , including from Shatter

We also have to remember that by making the conditions for asylum seekers more draconian (as you mentioned with the Dutch process), we risk putting more duress on genuine applicants. The law is designed to protect the innocent first and foremost and that is not a liberal policy, it is a legal requirement in any modern country.

Fair enough, but, the Dutch way, legal as it is (though, I think that is questionable at this time) is an avenueish.

Your last point raises an issue of an EU wide asylum policy and while the EU have attempted to bring uniformity, in the case of Belgium and Greece recently, this has proven not to be the case.[/QUOTE]

[Civil Civilian]

As stated before, if the asylum applications and appeals fail, then the applicant is deported back to the country or origin. During this time, it would be more beneficial for Ireland to have as these people working rather than being on direct provision. If we take into account the fact that Ireland has obligations (and therefore, is forced) under existing treaties to assess asylum applications, it would be far less costly for the Irish state to have these people working while their applications are being assessed. If their bids fail, then they leave. The real problem here is the amount of time in which a decision is to be reached. Now, for anyone to say that asylum applicants come to Ireland to enjoy the delights of Direct Provision has a long way to go.
In the case of a successful applicant, the costs are bigger if they are not allowed to work, the successful applicant will have been locked into a cycle of unemployment and dependency by the asylum process if they cannot legally work. Their skills are wasted and if they are successful in gaining refugee status, they will be thrown into the welfare system after a spell of long term enforced unemployment. We all know that Ireland has to take asylum seekers. Allowing them to work makes the best of a bad situation for the asylum applicants, the state and society. Not allowing them to work while they are being processed costs the state money in direct provision (as low as it already is), costs them lost income and ultimately will cost the state millions if their applications are successful.

[MrD011]

Was it last year or the one before that the Govt said the annual cost of dealing with asylum seekers was of the order of €350 million a year?

And if young Fine Gael have anything to do with its about to get a whole lot worse.

in their resolution that was adopted at the YEPP council meeting in Marseilles in December they argue

1)for all asylum seekers in Ireland at present to be allowed stay here and for dublin 2 to be suspended.

2)for all asylum seeker relatives to be allowed come to Ireland and live here also.

3)for asylum seekers to be allowed travel freely within the EU (asylum shopping) .