Deportation order

[ca.funke]

The report actually says the deportation order was issued in 2005, long before she meet this fella. Some may argue a situation was engineered or has, in future cases, the potential of being engineered...

Hi walrusgumble,

you won´t believe if I tell you that, actually, I´m on your side. However, there is a big "but":

If the deportation order was issued in 2005, I wonder why it wasn´t executed immediately? The authorities can´t say "you have to go", but at the same time leave enough time (5 years by now) to build up a completely new life.

I think asylum cases should be dealt with very swiftly, and any subsequent deportation should be executed immediately. No playing around - definitely not for five years.

After five years of sloppiness by the authorities, the facts of any case can change dramatically. Such as in this case. Whether "engineered" or not, the _Irish_ child who wants to be with her family cannot be denied anymore.

This woman, just as every other case, should have been deported just after her asylum case was turned down. In the new scenario, which developed because the authorities allowed it to develop, a deportation should no longer be an option.

The rules should be strict, straightforward and enforced immediately, without doubt.

The fact that the woman wasn´t deported immediately isn´t her fault, and the consequences of that should be accepted.

The DoJ is is showing strictness at a point in time when it is senseless, and to the disadvantage of Irish citizens. Just shows how screwed their attitude towards their own job is. Blaming their incompetence on others, tearing families apart. It´s a disgrace, nothing more.

[Obie]

I would have thought that the principle of proportionality, dictates that if a substantial period has elapsed without an order being enforced, it would be reasonable for the decision maker to reassess whether their is any material changes to the deportee's situation to make removal unreasonable.

I know that article 8 right is not an absolute right and that it is subjected to paragraph 2, however in light of the current circumstance, the balance will weigh in the favour of this woman if her circumstance is reassessed. In light of the fact she has no Criminal convictions, the private and family life she has established, i believe it is not right, and no court will support those children to be separated from their parents.

It is important to note that Article 8 does not just apply to the woman, it also applies to her children and the guy.

As rightly ruled in the recent case of an Iraqi chap who accidentally killed a young girl in the UK. The rights of children are of importance too.

In this case, there is a child, who is integrated in Ireland, who probably only speaks English, who possibly goes to school in Ireland, and whose father is an Irish Citizen residing in Ireland. Is it reasonable to expect these children to be uprooted from their home and livelihood to a country which they have no strong links with, or to choose between staying in Ireland without their mother, or going to that country which they have no proper ties to.

Ignoring the Article 8 angle, should the Ruiz Zambrono case result in a successful outcome, that child will have a community rights in Ireland, which the Irish would be obliged to respect. In such a scenario, they will be required to issue a Residence Card to the mother, under the community regime.

Regardless of what you think Walrusgumble, the pluses in this woman's favour is greater than the minuses.

I am not convinced that your views reflect a fair assessment of the reality and the compassionate ground of this woman's case.

I will not be surprised if all civil servant at the DOJ (your colleagues) will disagree with me, then again any true humans will never see eye to eye with them anyway.

[SSEF]

This woman, just as every other case, should have been deported just after her asylum case was turned down. In the new scenario, which developed because the authorities allowed it to develop, a deportation should no longer be an option.

The rules should be strict, straightforward and enforced immediately, without doubt.

The fact that the woman wasn´t deported immediately isn´t her fault, and the consequences of that should be accepted..

The above is easier said than done, assylum seekers go for appeal after appeal, they also go underground and they also do what this person has done - get married to the first person they can in order to establish family life.

It really is hard to have pitty on this woman, she (as already stated) turned up in Ireland pregnant, thinking her new born would gain Irish citizenship, wrong! Also since the child is only 5 years old, it's hardly going to be difficult for him to adjust in another country now is it? If that was the case, people wouldnt emmigrate if they had children for fear of their kids not being able to settle and since millions of people do emmigrate with small children then its not an excuse. I think its more a case of there being economic hardship, which is hardly Irelands fault.

There was also a point made that Europe should allow anyone in, well, Europes land mass isnt large enough to do this:

European landmass: 10,180,000 km2
Asia Landmass: 43,820,000
Africa Landmass: 30,370,000

Now for the population figures:

Europe: 731,000,000
Aisa: 3,879,000,000
Africa: 922,011,000

Now for the density figures: (people per km2)
Europe: 69.7
Asia: 86.7
Africa: 29.3

So as you can see from the above figures, there are reason that Europe has immigration policies 1. we do not have the space 2. there are fewer jobs these days because of off shoring and outsourcing 3. natural resources are low, therefore we can not sustain the growing populations we already have here now.

Of course everyone has a right to a better life, thats what europe did to end up the way it is now, things were not always rosey here, but hard work and determination improved circumstances for all.

[agniukas]

It really is hard to have pitty on this woman, she (as already stated) turned up in Ireland pregnant, thinking her new born would gain Irish citizenship, wrong! Also since the child is only 5 years old, it's hardly going to be difficult for him to adjust in another country now is it? If that was the case, people wouldnt emmigrate if they had children for fear of their kids not being able to settle and since millions of people do emmigrate with small children then its not an excuse. I think its more a case of there being economic hardship, which is hardly Irelands fault.

actually, all the talk in about the other child, not the one that was born in 2005 and missed out on irish citizenship. that's the nigerian child that she had many hopes for in relation to her residency in ireland. this poor child is not even mentioned any further anywhere...
her second child that she had with her irish spouse is that all the talk is about... the irish child should be around 3 years old now or less.
anyway, there is a lot of talk about the father of the child not being there for his child if the mother were deported... what about the father of the 1st child... the mother made the choice that father was not needed in that case when she arrived in ireland heavilly pregnant... or just to add the twist to the story, what IF there is a husband in nigeria, still waiting to be reunited with his wife and the nigerian child as soon the wife gets her permission... maybe that was the plan afterall, as in many of the cases. however, that plan didn't work out...
as i said, that's just to add a bit of twist, not information as to if that could be true... only to discuss, what IF....

[ca.funke]

The above is easier said than done, assylum seekers go for appeal after appeal, they also go underground and they also do what this person has done - get married to the first person they can in order to establish family life.

You have to ask yourself the question:

1. Why can they go for appeal after appeal? There should be one streamlined fast but fair process, with a final outcome. The fact that they can go for appeal after appeal shouldn´t be used against anyone. It´s not their fault.

2. Why can they marry? Only because the rest of the process is such a mess. Again, this shouldn´t be used against anyone, but made impossible from the beginning.

There was also a point made that Europe should allow anyone in, well, Europes land mass isnt large enough to do this:

It´s obvious that Europe can´t accept everyone in for various reasons.

But that doesn´t change that we should (but do not) determine a fast but fair way to deal with such cases. I wonder: If a case like this is decided after five years, what are the facts that are added to the decision/appeal/appeal/appeal/...? All facts should be brought to the table from the beginning. All facts that are added over time can only be new facts, such as children being born or weddings or other things which happen in the country where asylum is sought. If this period was limited to a month from the beginning, no such new facts could develop and therefore wouldn´t have to be considered.

Therefore my opinion remains:

1. Have a swift way to deal with cases, not accepting any bullshitting which is added over time.
2. Accept that, so far, it´s the sloppy processes which prompts messes like the current one from occurring.

The current case(es) can only by fixed by granting residence to the parents. Or face the fact that the Irish state separates parents from their _Irish_ children.

[walrusgumble]

Complaining is a citizen's right in a democratic society. So dont be shocked by it. I am sure other immigrants/citizen does it elsewhere, even the irish in oz/states. In a lot of countries there are laws so the department of immigration dont have a choice but to abide by what is written in the book...even if they don't like...but the thing about ireland is that its under discretion...now if minister is a wise man he will use it accordingly. Imagine if this case goes to ECtHR and the above mentioned family wins the case, it becomes law so minister wether he like it or lump it has to abide by it (just like the 6 months wait on EU family members without a STAMP4 to name a few) but as i say if he is a wise man he will use his discretion and quietly grant status, the same happened in a case of an irish man's chinese mother-in-law case the department had settle outside of court, as if it would have gone through it would have become enforceable. (although i heard on the boards here that the department later did a youie on it)

Every one deserves atleast a second chance in life, immigrants are no different. If an immigrant had overstayed/came as an asylum seeker or whatever....he/she is here now...give a second chance and show compassion, see how he/she can benefit and harness their skills (i know sounds like a bit too leftist)...but what i mean is if they became spouses of EU citizens, dont treat every one with same brush that this is done just as a marraige of convenience...yes marriage of convenience true on an immigrant part (and EU spouse knows this...this is why they engaged in the relationship thinking that no one is taking my darling away) but at the end of the day he/she is part of a family of an EU/Irish citizen. A person sitting on a desk with pile of paper and computer screen/statistics infront of them would not get the full picture.

Are you talking about the Moylan case? You mentioned there was a settlement. How do you know that the Minister granted the grandmother status? Unless, you have inside knowledge or there is information on it, how do we know what was decided, maybe the Minister agreed not to look for their costs as entitled in winning the case? or the minister did not invoke any deportation order for an agreement that the grandmother would now return to China?, thus making sure she can make return visits. The Supreme Court would definitely have upheld the decision of the High Court

As for ECtHR, considering the length of time they were together, which is not too long, in light of positive ECtHR cases, they might not succeed. It would be great if the court transcript was available to see what was put before the Minister whe considering the case. When was the judgement? ECtHR have actually allowed cases like this to happen, but it would be extremely interesting to see what was considered by the minister and then the court. The Minister could have given the decision and no one would know, but that is not the point. You should know Patty, the Minister is only intererested (or suppose to be) in the State's ability to control immigration rules and not this lady, if he sees that it is legal to act, in light of the ECHR, then he will do what he likes. Some scrutiny or guideline should be put down in legislation, but as you see in the inis site, its explicit that status will not be granted if there is a valid deportaion order in advance


Second chance? eh, yes, let them return voluntary to their countries first once refused refugee status (thus remaining legal) and the make an application on the basis of marriage. the country does not owe them anything. If a failed refugee does get a second chance, leave to remain applications. Surely you don't advocate an de facto economic migrant coming to any eu state, lie to the authorities about how unsafe they are (i am talking about safe countries as recommended by the UN), cost the state alot of money in legal fees and then side step matters by having babies or marrying at the top of the hat? Who is going to pay from them when they are out of work, as many including the Irish and EU's for a very long time. people were given a second chance via the ibc scheme despite the supreme court ruling.

I am sorry but the EU does not owe anyone anything, sorry for sounding harsh and cruel but ts true. Its ridiculous to have this uptopia notion of no boarders free movement for all outsde EU competence (there is no such thing) Its ridiculous then for those on work permits paying so much to come over here, when we see uninvited/unapproved non eu nationals come to the union.

Now if you were talking bout people who came here on work permits and lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are now illegal, then yes I fully agree, a second chance should be given. This happen already, stamp 4s were handed out bout 1 1/2 - 2 years ago to the undocumented.

As for the marriage of convenience agrument, fair point, but then there are far too many trends, far too convenient,even if genuine and even the ECHR accepts that.

[walrusgumble]

The report actually says the deportation order was issued in 2005, long before she meet this fella. Some may argue a situation was engineered or has, in future cases, the potential of being engineered...

Hi walrusgumble,

you won´t believe if I tell you that, actually, I´m on your side. However, there is a big "but":

If the deportation order was issued in 2005, I wonder why it wasn´t executed immediately? The authorities can´t say "you have to go", but at the same time leave enough time (5 years by now) to build up a completely new life.

I think asylum cases should be dealt with very swiftly, and any subsequent deportation should be executed immediately. No playing around - definitely not for five years.

After five years of sloppiness by the authorities, the facts of any case can change dramatically. Such as in this case. Whether "engineered" or not, the _Irish_ child who wants to be with her family cannot be denied anymore.

This woman, just as every other case, should have been deported just after her asylum case was turned down. In the new scenario, which developed because the authorities allowed it to develop, a deportation should no longer be an option.

The rules should be strict, straightforward and enforced immediately, without doubt.

The fact that the woman wasn´t deported immediately isn´t her fault, and the consequences of that should be accepted.

The DoJ is is showing strictness at a point in time when it is senseless, and to the disadvantage of Irish citizens. Just shows how screwed their attitude towards their own job is. Blaming their incompetence on others, tearing families apart. It´s a disgrace, nothing more.

why is was not evoked immediately. Maybe she evaded? To be fair maybe did not and reported to the gnib. More than likely, its the gnib's fault for such delay or due to backlog of applications for leave to remain, the department. i am sure your aware of how much it costs to arrange plans home. Don't get me know, it sounds a bit rich to move now after all this time, so the authorities need to be more effective, to stop this new life occurring. its annoying in a way, from an immigrants point of view in that every one was lackidasy about these issues but now when the economic sh8t hits the fana, everyone is more aggressive with policy. so bottom line, state's impotence

[walrusgumble]

I would have thought that the principle of proportionality, dictates that if a substantial period has elapsed without an order being enforced, it would be reasonable for the decision maker to reassess whether their is any material changes to the deportee's situation to make removal unreasonable.

I know that article 8 right is not an absolute right and that it is subjected to paragraph 2, however in light of the current circumstance, the balance will weigh in the favour of this woman if her circumstance is reassessed. In light of the fact she has no Criminal convictions, the private and family life she has established, i believe it is not right, and no court will support those children to be separated from their parents.

It is important to note that Article 8 does not just apply to the woman, it also applies to her children and the guy.

As rightly ruled in the recent case of an Iraqi chap who accidentally killed a young girl in the UK. The rights of children are of importance too.

In this case, there is a child, who is integrated in Ireland, who probably only speaks English, who possibly goes to school in Ireland, and whose father is an Irish Citizen residing in Ireland. Is it reasonable to expect these children to be uprooted from their home and livelihood to a country which they have no strong links with, or to choose between staying in Ireland without their mother, or going to that country which they have no proper ties to.

Ignoring the Article 8 angle, should the Ruiz Zambrono case result in a successful outcome, that child will have a community rights in Ireland, which the Irish would be obliged to respect. In such a scenario, they will be required to issue a Residence Card to the mother, under the community regime.

Regardless of what you think Walrusgumble, the pluses in this woman's favour is greater than the minuses.

I am not convinced that your views reflect a fair assessment of the reality and the compassionate ground of this woman's case.

I will not be surprised if all civil servant at the DOJ (your colleagues) will disagree with me, then again any true humans will never see eye to eye with them anyway.

on the first and second paragraph, i would have taught so too, as duration in the state is a specific issue as per section 3 1999 act to be considered. though, i can't see how someone who evaded a deportation for so long should or could be rewarded. i am aware of some english cases involving eu law said this. by the way, until i see the transcript, i am not saying he evaded, it could be further from the truth. i assume, and again, without seeing the decision, a separate application on basis of marriage was made and a re-assessment was made. again this is only assumption

very very big difference with the case involving an "iraqi chap". first, the death was accidental. the second, this is iraq and not nigeria we are talking about, only a complete lunatic/monster of a government would send iraqis back to their coi at this point of time

there is no obligation to consider an ag opinion as per zambrano, which appears to be contrdicted by another recent ecj case. it would be interesting to see how far zambrano would go with regard to chen v uk 2004 which set out a limited right for child. the child is this case is also nigerian and will be considered by the courts to be at an "adaptable age" ie under 10 as per dimbo

regadless of what you or anyone else thinks, the interests of the state far outweighs those of this family as per the high court and article 8.2

seriously if someone gets a hold of the report, please post it up so a proper analysis and discussion could be given.

former colleagues btw (thank god) i agree in away regarding not eeing eye to eye, if you look at their pension and all round laziness. as for true human, well, its their fellow citizens that seem to matter here

[walrusgumble]

It really is hard to have pitty on this woman, she (as already stated) turned up in Ireland pregnant, thinking her new born would gain Irish citizenship, wrong! Also since the child is only 5 years old, it's hardly going to be difficult for him to adjust in another country now is it? If that was the case, people wouldnt emmigrate if they had children for fear of their kids not being able to settle and since millions of people do emmigrate with small children then its not an excuse. I think its more a case of there being economic hardship, which is hardly Irelands fault.

actually, all the talk in about the other child, not the one that was born in 2005 and missed out on irish citizenship. that's the nigerian child that she had many hopes for in relation to her residency in ireland. this poor child is not even mentioned any further anywhere...
her second child that she had with her irish spouse is that all the talk is about... the irish child should be around 3 years old now or less.
anyway, there is a lot of talk about the father of the child not being there for his child if the mother were deported... what about the father of the 1st child... the mother made the choice that father was not needed in that case when she arrived in ireland heavilly pregnant... or just to add the twist to the story, what IF there is a husband in nigeria, still waiting to be reunited with his wife and the nigerian child as soon the wife gets her permission... maybe that was the plan afterall, as in many of the cases. however, that plan didn't work out...
as i said, that's just to add a bit of twist, not information as to if that could be true... only to discuss, what IF....

the other child, ie the first child is not relevant here, the irish citizen is not the biological father, unless the child was adopted by him as per irish law. no dount the minister made that point the non irish nigerian child is a child of nigeria, nigeria's problem and a matter between the mother and the father. the state has no obligation to that child bar considering that child's asylum case. anything else, is based on the mother


"had many hopes for in relation to her residency in ireland. this poor child is not even mentioned any further anywhere..." sorry, that is not the basis for refugee status.

the reason why the second child is the main issue is because this child has rights in this country to stay, and can stay with his/her father

the courts have been consistent when looking at the state's right to deport the parents, they see 3 years as adaptable age to be able to return to coi of parents without even realising they were in ireland. see lobe supeme court 2003, and recent endless cases involving fathers of citizens.

you are not suggestion that this lady has committed bigamy?

if there was a father in nigeri surely he would have done something via nigerian courts to get his child back. somehow , i doubt he is around

[walrusgumble]

The above is easier said than done, assylum seekers go for appeal after appeal, they also go underground and they also do what this person has done - get married to the first person they can in order to establish family life.

You have to ask yourself the question:

1. Why can they go for appeal after appeal? There should be one streamlined fast but fair process, with a final outcome. The fact that they can go for appeal after appeal shouldn´t be used against anyone. It´s not their fault.

2. Why can they marry? Only because the rest of the process is such a mess. Again, this shouldn´t be used against anyone, but made impossible from the beginning.

There was also a point made that Europe should allow anyone in, well, Europes land mass isnt large enough to do this:

It´s obvious that Europe can´t accept everyone in for various reasons.

But that doesn´t change that we should (but do not) determine a fast but fair way to deal with such cases. I wonder: If a case like this is decided after five years, what are the facts that are added to the decision/appeal/appeal/appeal/...? All facts should be brought to the table from the beginning. All facts that are added over time can only be new facts, such as children being born or weddings or other things which happen in the country where asylum is sought. If this period was limited to a month from the beginning, no such new facts could develop and therefore wouldn´t have to be considered.

Therefore my opinion remains:

1. Have a swift way to deal with cases, not accepting any bullshitting which is added over time.
2. Accept that, so far, it´s the sloppy processes which prompts messes like the current one from occurring.

The current case(es) can only by fixed by granting residence to the parents. Or face the fact that the Irish state separates parents from their _Irish_ children.

they are entitled to all avenues of the law and rightly so. the state tried to fast track cases from nigeria and got stopped by the court for fear corners maybe cut. the new immigration bill tries that light the british. i agree that the process is a mess. one of my earlier posts raises this. maybe having a system based like the english would help ie asylum would be considered with leave to remain rules together and not separately. i am not using it against them, i am explaining the state's fault at allowing this to happen in the first place

europe's land mass large enough? really? why should they?, what do they owe the world?, sort your (as in other landmass) own problems out. have you seen this recession is effecting all other eu states. if its so large, why is greece and italy not getting help speading out the asylum applicnts.see amnesty international, the big problems are italy and greece being responsible for disgraceful behaviour treating asylum seekers badly on arrival and trying to refuse them on the boarder - huge traffic due to their location to other contintents. the rest of europe frowns upon them yet do nothing to lift the burden

[archigabe]

My only concern is that the backlash against the asylum process doesn't fail genuine applicants like the Swedish Government
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_ ... christians


Hidden lives of UK's asylum 'rejects'


Asylum seekers: Britain has let us down

[SSEF]

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.

[walrusgumble]

My only concern is that the backlash against the asylum process doesn't fail genuine applicants like the Swedish Government
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/ap_ ... christians


Hidden lives of UK's asylum 'rejects'


Asylum seekers: Britain has let us down

absolutely, fair enough, i do not think any sane person with an ounce of intelligence or deceny could disagree with you, that despite the need for a streamline approach, it does not take away the fact the process must be fair , consistent and transparent, regardless of one's coi

[walrusgumble]

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.

[daddy]

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.

[walrusgumble]

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?

[victor8600]

was it not the europeans that first went to Africa?, WHO GAVE THEM VISA AND RESIDENCE PERMIT?

No, no! Africans started it first. 25 thousand years ago, in fact. They sneaked into Europe using illegal border crossings in Middle East. Lacking proper bureaucratic apparatus required to battle illegal immigration, the Neandertals soon went extinct.

[rlow68]

was it not the europeans that first went to Africa?, WHO GAVE THEM VISA AND RESIDENCE PERMIT?

No, no! Africans started it first. 25 thousand years ago, in fact. They sneaked into Europe using illegal border crossings in Middle East. Lacking proper bureaucratic apparatus required to battle illegal immigration, the Neandertals soon went extinct.

Stop feading us lies and stop distorting history, it will do you no good man

[IntheQ]

was it not the europeans that first went to Africa?, WHO GAVE THEM VISA AND RESIDENCE PERMIT?

No, no! Africans started it first. 25 thousand years ago, in fact. They sneaked into Europe using illegal border crossings in Middle East. Lacking proper bureaucratic apparatus required to battle illegal immigration, the Neandertals soon went extinct.

That means we ALL are AFRICANS

Humans have always traveled and will do so in future, that's in our nature, be it legal or illegal. Governments/Laws come and go.

Why argue. Take a chill pill. Its x-mas.
Just think what Jesus would do

[rlow68]

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?

walrusgumble it seems you have problem with IBC residence holders, in all your articles there was none you fail to refer to these people. The government and the whole country decided to help this people but you keep on going about them every time in your write ups
most of the articles on this site are about EU rights and asylum but you always bring IBC into the discussion everytime, as if most of these people are contributing noting or they criminals who are here to the detriments of the country, you behave as somebody who do a favour to his neighbour and keep on talking about it to get credit, you know how the neighbour will react later when he or she is tired of it.
In as much as there are immigrants both legal and illegal in this country and other countries, so also are Irish both legal and Illegals all over the world, there are many reasons for people migrating, and you cant understand most of it, because to you nearly every immigrant in Ireland are here for economic reason. I will plead with you to relax and assimilate, the world is a global place. Your comments are always appreciated but sometimes

[Obie]

The charter of fundamental right of the European law is applicable in this case, in regards to the Irish Citizen child and the father. They have right to family life, which is protected by law, even without Article 8 of the Human right act. This was correctly stated by the Advocate Sharpton in his recent opinion. It use to be soft law, but since the Lisbon treaty, it is directly binding, and ought to be respected by the courts.

I know Article 8 does not provide for one to choose which memberstate they live or establish their family life, but to deny someone the right to have a family life in the state of which they are national is a breach of the Article, except if this is justified by Paragraph 2 of the article. The Irish authority cannot use that paragraph to justify the deportation on this woman, full stop.


I agree with daddy, that illegal immigration was initiated by Anglo-Saxons and their cohorts. They went to many nations during the rein of the empire, against the wishes of the subjects, and inflicted a state anarchy and chaos. They looted the resources of these nations, set up illegal settlements, resettle their nationals their, example of these incidences is evidence in Kenya , South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia, America etc. In some instances, they rape the local, and unleashed a rein of terror on them. This is pretty evident in the Mau- Mau revolution in Kenya and in Australia against the aboriginal people. This is not a pigment of of our imagination victoria, it is reality. You cannot compare the scale of the horror to that, which you alleged occur 25,000 years ago, for which i cannot find any credible records.
Most immigrant that came in to these western nations, came in as free men and women, whiles these people went to the nations the subjugated as bullies and criminals. We provide labour and skill, which the locals are unwilling or inept to provide. Our hard work and resilience keeps essential service going. Like in the UK, about a third of the NHS staff are from overseas, that does not include the ethnic minority, who were born here or naturalise. if these people were to be expelled, then you will experience a total shut down of service.

[victor8600]

That means we ALL are AFRICANS

Bingo, man

[walrusgumble]

walrusgumble it seems you have problem with IBC residence holders, in all your articles there was none you fail to refer to these people. The government and the whole country decided to help this people but you keep on going about them every time in your write ups
most of the articles on this site are about EU rights and asylum but you always bring IBC into the discussion everytime, as if most of these people are contributing noting or they criminals who are here to the detriments of the country, you behave as somebody who do a favour to his neighbour and keep on talking about it to get credit, you know how the neighbour will react later when he or she is tired of it.
In as much as there are immigrants both legal and illegal in this country and other countries, so also are Irish both legal and Illegals all over the world, there are many reasons for people migrating, and you cant understand most of it, because to you nearly every immigrant in Ireland are here for economic reason. I will plead with you to relax and assimilate, the world is a global place. Your comments are always appreciated but sometimes

Ehh, erm, has it occurred to you that the issue at hand, at topic, the primary matter here in this reported case, and many many immigration cases in the past while, involves IBC or Irish Citizen Children? That is why they are referred to. The situation is a classic example of how bad the Irish system is and was. It is also the classic example until EU marriage trend, of how the asylum process can be abused. (ie coming to europe without obtaining the correct documents and following set procedures). Eh, help these people, ha ha ha. Know, IBC 05 came in because it would have cost the State more money implementing deportations order and tracking down (thus treating them like hunted animals) evaders. It was typical government short term solutions to a walking time bomb.

Read the article, its about an Irish Citizen Child. It has nothing to do with EU law (for now) So, the issue of IBC here, on this thread is very very very appropriate.



Most of these people contributing, really? Well i know many former colleagues (ie civil servants) in social welfare who would suggest otherwise (and no i am not talking about now and i would accept and do accept some are exaggerating). No doubt many IBC parents are brilliant people (some know irish) and are hard working, but its very hard to hear them or see them to be pontificated about what this state should do or don't do or talk about human rights and persecution and always complain about this State. But they still took advantage of the State.

Everyone here is an economic migrant? No I never said that, I pointed out specific countries, on this thread alone, that I would not consider economic migrants. The rest, with exception of EU's and their families, are. Fact, see the court transcripts, COI and stats for yourself. Ireland ain't the only country, see the British REfugee transcipts. I never said I had a problem with economic migrants. I only said, I have a problem with those who come here either illegally or on false premises. As for the Irish lark, I do not support it that so there is no point throwing that nugget out. You will see now, most are going over and staying legal.


assimilate? Eh no, your in our garden now. The world is global, ha ha ha . Ye Somehow, visas etc will still be needed.

[walrusgumble]

The charter of fundamental right of the European law is applicable in this case, in regards to the Irish Citizen child and the father. They have right to family life, which is protected by law, even without Article 8 of the Human right act. This was correctly stated by the Advocate Sharpton in his recent opinion. It use to be soft law, but since the Lisbon treaty, it is directly binding, and ought to be respected by the courts.

I know Article 8 does not provide for one to choose which memberstate they live or establish their family life, but to deny someone the right to have a family life in the state of which they are national is a breach of the Article, except if this is justified by Paragraph 2 of the article. The Irish authority cannot use that paragraph to justify the deportation on this woman, full stop.


I agree with daddy, that illegal immigration was initiated by Anglo-Saxons and their cohorts. They went to many nations during the rein of the empire, against the wishes of the subjects, and inflicted a state anarchy and chaos. They looted the resources of these nations, set up illegal settlements, resettle their nationals their, example of these incidences is evidence in Kenya , South Africa, Zimbabwe, Australia, America etc. In some instances, they rape the local, and unleashed a rein of terror on them. This is pretty evident in the Mau- Mau revolution in Kenya and in Australia against the aboriginal people. This is not a pigment of of our imagination victoria, it is reality. You cannot compare the scale of the horror to that, which you alleged occur 25,000 years ago, for which i cannot find any credible records.
Most immigrant that came in to these western nations, came in as free men and women, whiles these people went to the nations the subjugated as bullies and criminals. We provide labour and skill, which the locals are unwilling or inept to provide. Our hard work and resilience keeps essential service going. Like in the UK, about a third of the NHS staff are from overseas, that does not include the ethnic minority, who were born here or naturalise. if these people were to be expelled, then you will experience a total shut down of service.

No one denies that the Charter applies but it has little to do with EU free movement law, which has not occurred here, anything else the EU has no jurisidiction (for now, germany will, some day get its reich, lol). The charter is almost word for word. Sharpton is one AG, you know it goes against the other recent AG opinion dealing with dual nationality. Its an opinion, no more no less. Opinions are not of direct effect.

No one is denying the Citizen child a right to live in their country. And if they are, indirectly, it has been accepted in previous cases and by the ECtHR.

I have explained why Ireland can jusitify using Artilce 8.2, so you tell us why it can't. Please will someone get the court transcript.

We are not Britian (despite what our tv's say), nor do we have anything like the NHS (which pays better than their countries of origin so drop that lark) nor are were we an empire (though some Irish were involved, unionists/loyalist - and no not the ones we all know and love today) Ireland, survived without the huge wave prior to 1996 (the pin point of the economic boom) but yes, the migrants (doctors and medics, employers) have helped. Those people are unlikely to leave unless for better opportunities,(good better, better lifestyle, but crap weather of course) and if they do, we will get others who will be more than happy to come in, maybe our own disapora. Not all of these migrants are from the countries you refer to (not that that matters by the way)

THe country is almost shut down by the way, there is still a bigger proportion of irish micks/paddys in these areas, jesus we have so many nurses and teachers they all feck off to britian and abroad.

What impression to you have that LEGAL AND ESTABLISHED migrants will be expelled?

[SSEF]

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.

Thanks for your rich words but Im the GG grand daughter of a Suffragette who was beaten to a pulp and raped for her right to vote in a country where women and low class people had no rights, I think I can speak..

I really respect your posts, but I think you missed my point and I have to point out do you think the Republic would be would be in existence without a fight? Think how many men/women fought the good fight and won the freedom on a tiny island?

As for Afghanis growing a backbone, no chance, they are corrupt the core they have always been hedging their bets and installing what rules they wanted..ever heard of bacha baza, if not, google it and learn a bit about the waring times against russia!

As for safe places, we live on islands, asylum is about reaching a safe place, not a place with the most benefits...