daddy wrote:walrusgumble wrote:SSEF wrote:Shouldnt they protest about their human rights when they're Bagdad? I see all the time on this board about immigrants doing it in Europe, filing cases for their human rights, right to family life blah blah blah, so why are these citizens of these countries not trying to change things?? Only when they grow a back bone and stand up for themselves will they carve out a better future! Europe is not the guardian of the world!
By the way what has Sweden got to do with Ireland?
By the way I resent the comments about beloved, I could give you links to attacks carried out by Asians in the UK on white people or increasing s*x attacks on white women by Asian men...so please keep your one sided CNN reports to yourself!
Asylum seekers that come to Britain pass through several safe countries in order to get here - if they were so desparate for a safe place they would settle in the first country that was safe.
bit rich comin from cnn alright, one word, mexico.
i have to say, i am glad you were not the person who had earlier suggested that i knew little about the human rights problems in places like africa ( a matter i clearly refutted after)
you are aware of the problems existing in iraq for the past twenty years and now, aren't you? journalists are still being killed for speaking up, sectarianism is rife, and innocent people are being killed in bombings, the insurgents and criminal gangs have not gone away you know. go to
www.ecoi.net for all the info. i was / am completely against the americans and british entering these places but, now they are there, its not so easy for them to leave, and they are needed there by the relevant governments.
zimbabwe is no better, even now (well its a tiny bit better, though many authorities find most asylum seekers were not mdc members but economic migrants. i would not be as forceful on my comments, we owe them nothing regarding people of that country
you think somalia is any better?
Iraq and afghanistan are both deemed by un as not being safe , even if intitally they don't believe their stories, leave to remain might be granted. surely you enjoy the gift of common sense to know damn well that europe is safer to protest about their countries instead of doing it there. as for growing a backbone, i believe the afghanis did that in the 1970's with russia, and many are still doing it today against the us and brits, or the other way round, al queda etc (which ever fence they are on) SERIOUSLY, do some research before making comments like that, you will get your answer then
i sense you are talking about the dublin convention . nothing in that stops a person to choose a country to apply.
Walrusgumble, no doubts that sometime I like your way of reasoning and criticism, notwithstanding, you have to soften up in your reasoning when it comes to issues regarding family live, especially when a minor is involved, that is very important whether you accept it or not, if it were not necessary, the ECHR would have not recognised it.
SSEF, it is very important for you to reason carefully before you make comments and remarks. Why would someone say that Europe is not a guardian? another said '' we dont have space for non Eu people'', may I ask, who started this migration thing at first?, was it not the europeans that first went to Africa?, WHO GAVE THEM VISA AND RESIDENCE PERMIT?, did they enjoy the flood gate? who's resources were taken away with tricks?, WHO WERE FORCEFULLY REMOVED FROM THEIR LAND AND TAKEN INTO SLAVERY,? IF you can answer the above questions correctly, then you will be able to tell who started this issue of illegal migration.
However, I do not support illegal migaration, there is need for controled migaration, but I do not like when people make certain remarks, that makes me sick! Lets be reasonable, we are all humans. Merry christmas to you all.
There is absolutely no soften up or u turns on my part. Nor will I. The interpretation of the ECHR by many here, is incorrect and flawed. End of story. The ECtHR, time and time again, have recognised that a state does not have to respect a family's choice of residence. (Different story of course, if all or some are EU citizens and actually are exercising those rights) The ECtHR recognises that families, including EU's can be split up. The Irish Supreme Court same. By not applying Lobe, simply because there is an adult Irish citizen (who has not exercised EU rights) in this case, could be struck down for discrimination as per Article 14 of ECHR, on discrimination of nationality. THe States, as per ECtHR give them a wide degree of appreciation in deciding how to come to their decisions.
historical talk is not going to cut it, now matter how i agree with you on that point, "reap what you sow" mr british,french, beligan, german empires. But hang on, Ireland has historicaly led the way when it came to charity work and sending money to Africa. Look at Goal, Trocaire and the Alan Keirns foundation. Whether or not they had their motives (ie spread religion, and more problems) the Irish Catholic Church have done good things in Africa and Asia, many of you may have been taught by them. God forbid, but Bono and Bob Geldof have spent all their lives dealing with it, as does Aidi Roache, and many more. Live Aid in the 1980's , the irish were behind a huge percentage of the contributors, despite their country been in a hole. Yes, it does sound very charles dickinson referring to land mass etc, but its only a response to those who say Europe can take them. Clearly, they can't (ie economic non eu migrants not linked to eu law or refugee status)the current situation proves it.
Visa , or work permits were handed out to those who meet the skills and job market, irresepctive of where they were from. There were no guarantees set out for them, though, there were clear implied promises that were never reputed by the government. However, this case, and the issue we are talking about involves failed asylum seekers and not the other class, ie permit holders (whom no one is disputing about). No one is complaining either about "flood gate of immigrants" either, trust me. If there is a requirement for them fine. No one is complaining either about the asylum seekers right to come here and make an application. The problem, is, the state's impotence of how its dealt with and what to do when they are refused, after seeking all legal assistance. The delays, and to be frank, terrible standard of decision making that brought so many judicial reviews (not all cases were losing ones as they seem now) As for the floodgates, well, look at the INIS and RAT stats, and look to the period of 1998-2004, when the country was booming and there was automatic citizenship, sorry, far far to convenient. Again, thats the way it was, the law is the law.
As for resources, please google in to get solid and respectful resources as to how much the asylum and legal process costs this state per year (and no, i am not saying they get free this that or other, thats all bollo*) How many IBC lone parents, do you reckon have worked instead of claiming welfare, during a time when it was easy to find it,?and no crap about child minders etc (Lets be extremely carefull here, I am well aware, a good lot work, so i won't be going down that road)
And don't get me wrong, even when they continue in the humanitarian process after the actual asylum case, many are left in limbo due to delays. But it still should not, within reason allow them to take the country hostage by engineering other ways of staying.
THe remarks made, are facts, as many a person here says, open your eyes.Its a response to those, not neccessarily the immigrant may i add, more to do with the middle class offical ireland lot, who spout out x, y and z
Reasonable for who?