Ideal Immigration and Asylum Policy

Liberty-101

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
25
What is the Ideal Immigration and Asylum Policy?

I hear many saying "their taking over the country"
and many others calling McDowell "fascist" and "extreme" for deporting peoplle who'd asylum applications have failed.

What would you rather in:

1. Immigration

2. Asylum

(please don't confuse the two)
 


pluralist

Active member
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
180
A limit per year should be put in place, based on the likely forecast needs of the economy. We need immigrants to do the jobs Irish people don't want to do any more, frankly.

People who can prove a substantial risk of persecution in their home countries should be allowed in even if the limit is breached.

Also the whole process should be speeded up, with asylum seekers being allowed to work, pending a decision on their cases.

Easy as pie!!
 

Kerrygold

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
4,711
1. Immigration is important for us in an economic sense. We need a certain amount of immigrants as we don't have the workforce needed. The questions is what figure would we put on it, how many do we need. It came up on Q&A last night and McWilliams? had some good ideas about it.

2. Asylum - we are legally and morally obliged to provide refuge to people fleeing persecution, war, famine e.t.c. Again and for obvious reasons, we need to put a limit on what we can handle. When you hear "they're taking over the place" its usually down to ignorance, but occasionally it can be excused when small towns are overloaded with asylum seekers. I would call for a common sense approach. Oh and I would most certainly let them work. That would put an end to the myth that all asylum seekers are spongers, it would also weed out the actual spongers.

Hows that?
 

Arnó

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
27
We need a green card system to bring in the workers we need.

We need to take our share of asylum seekers. A figure should be worked out with the U.N.

Everyone who reaches this country should be allowed to work until a decision is made as to wheither they can stay or not. This would put an end to the spongers tag.

But we definatley need some kind of policy, it's all over the place at the moment.
 

Liberty-101

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
25
I'd like to know what some consider "safe" and unsafe countries, for example Romania is poor, but your hardly in enough trouble to need asylum, espechally since they are 5 min from EU membership?
 

Hana

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
8
Website
www.football365.com
Liberty-101 said:
I'd like to know what some consider "safe" and unsafe countries, for example Romania is poor, but your hardly in enough trouble to need asylum, espechally since they are 5 min from EU membership?
Immigration - we need this to ensure the economic and I would argue cultural growth of the country. A policy is needed much like a green card system but this has to be issued to the person and not to a company otherwise we are creating a 'serf' system of bonded labour. This system has to allow for migrants to bring their families with them to ensure they contribute meaningfully to our society

On asylum - again we have to be clearer but compassionate. At this stage all asylum seekers should have the right to work - in fact if they are not working they should be on ce schemes etc.

With regards to Romania - have a look at the Roma Rights Centre website - the main reasons that they are still not in the EU is to do with these abuses.
 

leda

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
5
Liberty-101 said:
I'd like to know what some consider "safe" and unsafe countries, for example Romania is poor, but your hardly in enough trouble to need asylum, espechally since they are 5 min from EU membership?
Romania is supposed to be on the "white list" -(safe countries). I don't agree with a notion of a white list - because there can be very serious human rights abuses in countries regarded as generally ok. I've heard of issues like forced sterilisation of Roma women being a problem in some eastern euro countries - (not sure about Romania).
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
Hmmm... nearly everyone here thinks that asylum-seekers should be given the right to work.

Am I alone in wanting a decision process so swift that there wouldn't be much time to get into work, i.e. six months maximum.
Isn't it reasonably compassionate not to allow people to put down roots if you know that the vast majority of them will have to be refused?

Of course that raises questions about presuming the worst of applicants, and could be used as a rationale for detention centres - not something I want to see.
Our current system is the worst of both worlds: extraordinary delays, applicants putting down those metaphorical roots and no right to work.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
Libero said:
Hmmm... nearly everyone here thinks that asylum-seekers should be given the right to work.

Am I alone in wanting a decision process so swift that there wouldn't be much time to get into work, i.e. six months maximum.
Isn't it reasonably compassionate not to allow people to put down roots if you know that the vast majority of them will have to be refused?
No, I'd agree with you there.

That's the problem with arguing for the right to work, or for individual families to be allowed to remain. The real problem is that the entire system of asylum processing needs to be massively overhauled, so that you have both swiftness in decision-making (although the desire for speed shouldn't overwhelm the right to due process, and to appeal), and some level of confidence in the system. A big problem at the moment is that there's very little consistency in the way decisions are made, there's a lack of transparency, and the level of rejections that are overturned on appeal suggests that there's a serious problem at the initial application stage.

On top of that, the whole system of direct provision of services is massively expensive, and it's hard to see in whose benefit its continuation is.

Of course, dealing with these isn't just a matter of resources. It really requires political leadership and vision, which doesn't seem to be present at the moment, despite all the hard-man swaggering.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
Immigration:

With 60,000 Immigrants entering the State last year and the natural increase in population being around 30,000 you don't have to be Albert Einstein to work out that the Irish will end up a minority in Ireland unless we do something.

The fact is there is no reason why the Economic growth rate has to be so high.

You may ask why it is so?

Mainly because Immigration is allowing business to expand by providing a ready pool of cheap Labour.

This lessens Wage demands and thus Inflation. This in turn allows for economic expansion which leads to demands by business for more low wage workers.

So the whole 'The Economy needs more workers' is a vicious circle.

The merits of the optimum rate of Economic expansion should be based on whether it serves the interests of the Irish people.

As it obvioulsy not in our interests to end up a minority in our own country then it follows for that not to happen we need to bring the numbers of Immigrants arriving here annually down drastically.

A quota system needs to be enforced that ensures that never again does the growth in the numbers of Immigrants exceed the natural growth in population.

Otherwise we might be the 21st Century's Manhattan Indians! :?
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
As for Asylum Seekers that category of immigrant should be abolished. It is obvious the vast majority of people arriving here claiming Asylum are bogus.

Let us sit down with the UN and work out a better and more just program.

Namely one where we agree to take a certain number of genuine refugees who are already registered with the UN as that and bring them to Ireland where they will automatically be here as Refugees and actively encouraged to integrate into Irish Society.

If the situation improves in their Home Country they will be given every assistance to return home if they so wish.

I think such a system would be Fair both to genuine Refugees and the Irish people who are heartily sick of people arriving here by the thousands each year telling stories that all bar a handful do not believe anyway and then proceed to live off our backs.

No way should the current Asylum Seekers be able to work here short of being legally passed as genuine refugees.

Also NO TO MULTICULTURALISM!
:x
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
smiffy said:
Catalpa said:
Let us sit down with the UN and work out a better and more just program.
The 'UN' (assuming you mean the UNHCR) would probably just tell you that you'd be in breach of your obligations under the relevant Convention.
What are they going to do....cry themselves to sleep? :cry:

Anyway interesting to note that Howard is prepared to withdraw Britain from the 1951 UN provisions if elected.

You can be sure other Governments in Europe would follow suit if any major host Nation pulled out.

Their Voters would demand it.

PS It's going to happen anyway....10 years Max. :D
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
Catalpa said:
What are they going to do....cry themselves to sleep? :cry:
No, I'm just pointing out that as your position would be in breach of the Convention, the UNHCR probably won't be in a position to negotiate some compromise position.

Anyway interesting to note that Howard is prepared to withdraw Britain from the 1951 UN provisions if elected.

You can be sure other Governments in Europe would follow suit if any major host Nation pulled out.

Their Voters would demand it.
Well, I'm not so sure.

First of all, Howard wouldn't withdraw. The only reason he's saying it is because he knows he doesn't have a prayer of getting elected, and is only using immigration as a dog whistle to draw out the Conservative core vote. Unfortunately, it currently looks like his position on immigration is actually counterproductive: while it may attract some voters to the Conservatives, it's also encouraging numbers of disillusioned Labour voters, who might have abstained, or might have voted Lib Dem, to hold their noses and vote for Blair one more time.

However, if Britain withdrew from the Convention, I don't think the effect among other Member States would be the same as you outline. Britain would make itself a pariah, and anti-British feeling among the general publics in those states would increase, in much the same way as anti-US feeling increased following its withdrawal from Kyoto (regardless of the fact that most other countries aren't that serious about meeting their commitments under that either). In fact, it might make people more supportive of their own state's commitment to international law and meeting their obligations under UN Conventions (especially as numbers of asylum applications appear to be falling at the moment).

But it doesn't matter. Howard isn't going to get in.
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
How you work out that if Britain withdrew from the outdated 1951 provisions beats me!

It would be hugely popular at Home and would give the other European Governments the lead they needed to get out of it.

The system cannot last and eventually an anti Immigrant Party will be in power somwhere in Europe who will withdraw.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
Catalpa said:
The system cannot last and eventually an anti Immigrant Party will be in power somwhere in Europe who will withdraw.
If immigration and asylum were the same things, this might be true (although we've had these scare stories about the rise of anti-immigration groups across Europe for decades, but they haven't made any serious headway).

However, asylum accounts for a tiny proportion of immigration, and even that is falling. I can't see any EU government withdrawing from the Convention (which would, in effect, mean excluding themselves from a huge element of the Third Pillar of the Union - or whatever it'll be called if the Consititution is passed), for no real benefit. Asylum isn't as big an issue on the continent as it is here and in the UK, although immigration itself can be contentious.
 

Liberty-101

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
25
As far as Asylum seekers go:


Carrier I've seen some of the lazy ****s who happen to be Irish, and I contrast it with African and Asian people I know to have a much more positive attitude, who want to contribute, while those Irish ones I mentioned want more more more done for them.
If those clowns become a minority I have no problem.

So I havn't heard anyone here say asylum applications that are refused should not be deported, so that would mean McDowell is not an extreme racist then.

The biggest point here is: Speed up the process



As far as immigration goes:
I see the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous country.

I can't stand the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around Ireland. At the same time, I recognize that the right to enter the country does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.

A policy of open immigration will advance the economic well-being of Ireland.

Immigrants are often more hard working and entrepreneurial than some Irish people, and tend to have specialized skills that allow them to enter under-served markets.

Although it is a common misconception that immigrants are "takin our jobs", people who say that have often not worked or paid taxes themselves in years.

Indeed, immigrants actually lead to an increase in the number of jobs available. Immigrants produce jobs in several ways:

1) They expand the demand for goods and services through their own consumption;

2) They bring savings with them that contribute to overall investment and productivity;

3) They are highly entrepreneurial and create jobs through the businesses they start;


Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to welfare unless they pay tax.

I would argue, that there would be no lack of takers for that proposition.
 

section4

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
8
Liberty-101 said:
As far as Asylum seekers go:


Carrier I've seen some of the lazy ****s who happen to be Irish, and I contrast it with African and Asian people I know to have a much more positive attitude, who want to contribute, while those Irish ones I mentioned want more more more done for them.
If those clowns become a minority I have no problem.

So I havn't heard anyone here say asylum applications that are refused should not be deported, so that would mean McDowell is not an extreme racist then.

The biggest point here is: Speed up the process



As far as immigration goes:
I see the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous country.

I can't stand the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around Ireland. At the same time, I recognize that the right to enter the country does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.

A policy of open immigration will advance the economic well-being of Ireland.

Immigrants are often more hard working and entrepreneurial than some Irish people, and tend to have specialized skills that allow them to enter under-served markets.

Although it is a common misconception that immigrants are "takin our jobs", people who say that have often not worked or paid taxes themselves in years.

Indeed, immigrants actually lead to an increase in the number of jobs available. Immigrants produce jobs in several ways:

1) They expand the demand for goods and services through their own consumption;

2) They bring savings with them that contribute to overall investment and productivity;

3) They are highly entrepreneurial and create jobs through the businesses they start;


Suppose we increased the level of immigration, but the rule would be that immigrants and their descendants would have no access to welfare unless they pay tax.

I would argue, that there would be no lack of takers for that proposition.
All growth isn't neccessarily good

Take multi national for example, comes in gets grants for coming into country,pays lowest corporation tax in europe, repatriates its profits back home, Employs cheap immigrant labour which in turns puts pressure on wages rates and also puts pressure on the housing and accommodation market.

One of the biggest problems people in Dublin have is that they can't afford houses, how does this help them when you take in thousands of people who are then competing for the same houses, and accommodation.

This talk about immigration being good for economic growth , what does that mean, does it mean that it is good for a multi-national and indigenous big business.

The celtic tiger was well under way before mass immigration.

Economic growth is cyclical, do you think for one minute if you had the same immigration rates you have had in the last 6 or 7 years in the eighties it would have made ireland prosperous, the answer is no.

If the immigrants are so hard working and good for the economy why are their own economies not doing well, and if they are not doing well why dont they stay and help them do well.

talking about economic, what is a recession.

Also about national debts, how come every country in the world has a national debt, who do they owe this debt to, if every country has a national debt then that must mean none have any money to spare money to lend.

Perhaps they owe this national debt to private individuals and companies /banks .
 

Liberty-101

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
25
1982, UK:

"Damm Irish they must be lazy I mean look at the state of their country"

THe real problem of course was that our leaders were totally incompetent, not that we were lazy.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top