New Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 published

[Clanrickard]

So again i ask you, why do they arrive in Ireland and not the first safe EU nation they arrive at?[/B]

Read the convention and then come back to me. They ARE claiming asylum in the first place they land. As Nigerians speak English it is obvious that they head for an English speaking country. The same way as Congolese head for France, Angolans head for Portugal etc. Every applicant should be judged on a case by case basis. You are making the assumption that ALL Nigerian asylum applicants are bogus which is wrong.

[gnasher]

You clearly havent read the article.

The writer was writing about the year 2009. They were looking at the figures so far and comparing with EU figures for the same period.

No, you dope. They were writing in May of 2009 about the total figures for 2008. For her, "last year" meant 2008. For me (though possibly not you) it's currently 2010, so when I use the words "last year" I'm referring to 2009. This is not, for a person of normal intelligence, a difficult point.

[FutureTaoiseach]

When did asylum numbers into Ireland start falling, FutureTaoiseach? I've been around the block with you on this topic- about the numbers, the Dublin Convention, the reasons for the massive decline in the number of asylum-seekers in Ireland- and none of the properly-sourced data I give you ever sticks.

It's as if you decided what your opinion is going to be and no pesky facts are going to interfere with your worldview.

It began in 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down automatic Irish citizenship for asylum-seekers with Irish children. That was augmented by the Citizenship referendum which closed a much abused loophole that had resulted in 58% of female asylum-seekers being pregnant when claiming asylum. Then there were the increased powers in the Illegal Immigrants Act under McDowell which increased the powers of immigration-officers to refuse permission to land. The denial of the right to work is also a factor. You may argue that its revocation didn't immediately result in a fall in asylum-numbers. I would counter-argue that the tripling in monthly asylum-claims when it was allowed would inevitably have created a situation whereby its eventual revocation years later would have led to a dramatic drop in asylum-claims anyway and you cannot deny that conclusively because the right to work was only allowed for a few months in 1999, making conclusions on its longterm implications inconclusive. The experience of the opening of the labour-market to the Accession States would seem to suggest - together with what happened in 1999 - that an increase in asylum-claims would have resulted from allowing them to work.

[Bi ciuin]

No, you dope. They were writing in May of 2009 about the total figures for 2008. For her, "last year" meant 2008. For me (though possibly not you) it's currently 2010, so when I use the words "last year" I'm referring to 2009. This is not, for a person of normal intelligence, a difficult point.

Firstly I dont like being called a dope. Have you read the T&C`s about personal abuse on P.ie?

Secondly, please point out in the article where it referes to these figures being from 2008?

[Bi ciuin]

Read the convention and then come back to me. They ARE claiming asylum in the first place they land. As Nigerians speak English it is obvious that they head for an English speaking country. The same way as Congolese head for France, Angolans head for Portugal etc. Every applicant should be judged on a case by case basis. You are making the assumption that ALL Nigerian asylum applicants are bogus which is wrong.

What has the convention got to do with this?

As Nigerians speak English wouldnt England be a better choice of destination?

Why take that EXTRA step and enter Ireland?

There are no direct flights from Ireland to Nigeria

Department of Foreign Affairs

So in other words these Nigerians who speak English arrived in England but decided that the UK wasnt a safe enoough destination and travelled to Ireland for safety?

[gnasher]

Firstly I dont like being alled a dope. Have you read the T&C`s about personal abuse on P.ie?

Secondly, please point out in the article where it referes to these figures being from 2008?

It's not my job to teach you how to read. It's your link. Why don't you try to read it again properly and if you still don't understand the point, if I've time I'll give you an even more basic hand than I've all ready given you, poor cratur.

[gnasher]

It began in 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down automatic Irish citizenship for asylum-seekers with Irish children. That was augmented by the Citizenship referendum which closed a much abused loophole that had resulted in 58% of female asylum-seekers being pregnant when claiming asylum. Then there were the increased powers in the Illegal Immigrants Act under McDowell which increased the powers of immigration-officers to refuse permission to land. The denial of the right to work is also a factor. You may argue that its revocation didn't immediately result in a fall in asylum-numbers. I would counter-argue that the tripling in monthly asylum-claims when it was allowed would inevitably have created a situation whereby its eventual revocation years later would have led to a dramatic drop in asylum-claims anyway and you cannot deny that conclusively because the right to work was only allowed for a few months in 1999, making conclusions on its longterm implications inconclusive. The experience of the opening of the labour-market to the Accession States would seem to suggest - together with what happened in 1999 - that an increase in asylum-claims would have resulted from allowing them to work.

Generally speaking when you start writing in blocks like this it means you're making a silly, irrelevant point. The fact is that across Europe asylum figures started to nose-dive in the early 2000s - nothing to do with Citizenship referendums or Illegal Immigrant Acts. The numbers were in decline in the EU and in Ireland after 2002. There is a bigger picture here that you simply ignore.

Todays figure's in Ireland are tiny, less than 2,700 people. The notion that we are an "asylum doormat" would make sense only to a complete dingbat. There were close to 300,000 asylum seekers in Europe last year. If we were a doormat with easy entry, lax rules and a soft life for all and sundry, we'd surely expect to have seen more than 1% of the total, which is within a couple of hundred of being precisely our fair share. Don't let your obsession with this issue blind you to the reality of what I'm saying.

[Clareboy]

Tough new anti-immigration laws are long over due. We should also have a special Garda border unit to patrol the frontier between the Republic and Northern Ireland.

[Catalpa]

Tough new anti-immigration laws are long over due. We should also have a special Garda border unit to patrol the frontier between the Republic and Northern Ireland.

We need an All Ireland Immigration Police Force working in close contact with their colleagues in Britain.

[johntrenchard]

What has the convention got to do with this?

As Nigerians speak English wouldnt England be a better choice of destination?
Why take that EXTRA step and enter Ireland?

Department of Foreign Affairs
So in other words these Nigerians who speak English arrived in England but decided that the UK wasnt a safe enoough destination and travelled to Ireland for safety?

Thats not a bad question actually.

Why are Africans in Ireland? We never had any African colonies. We don't have any obligation historically to take them in.

Or is this because of nationality agreements between the UK and former colonies, that once they get UK citizenship - they then use the EU open borders to get into Ireland?

I really am perplexed about this. I mean i can understand Algerians in France, Brazillians in Portugal, and Jamaicans in England.

But why our little western island? How come they're ending up here? Are we some sort of EU dumping ground?