Afghan hunger Strikers (1 Viewer)

[hugh]

Was (Not Was)

 

[Unicron]

When asylum seekers first apply over 97% are turned down no one in their right mind could say that is fair.

Demonstrate that more than 3% of applicants deserve to be granted asylum. I don't see why just becasue a figure is thrown out there it should be given any significance.

 

[mazzyianne]

Demonstrate that more than 3% of applicants deserve to be granted asylum. I don't see why just becasue a figure is thrown out there it should be given any significance.

That's a pretty stupid comment in my book.
Are you saying that 97% of the people who leave their own country and travel all the way here, maybe in the back of a truck, on a cramped boat, risking their lives, and are treated like shit when they get here, then sit bored shitless with no money and nothing to do for YEARS, are just doing it for the lark??

Anyway, who is deserving? If you could be tortured and killed for political reasons you should be allowed stay, but if you might starve to death from famine you can fuck off home.

 

[Unicron]

That's a pretty stupid comment in my book.
Are you saying that 97% of the people who leave their own country and travel all the way here, maybe in the back of a truck, on a cramped boat, risking their lives, and are treated like shit when they get here, then sit bored shitless with no money and nothing to do for YEARS, are just doing it for the lark??

No, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "deserve" as it's a somewhat emotive term and should have used something a bit more concrete like "are entitled under the current laws". The asylum process is a mess, those that have applied for it should be allowed to work while their applications are being processed, furthermore if an asylum applicant gets a job which is hard to find qualified applicants for amongst the pool of potential employees who already have rights to work here then there should be a system put in place for the employer to sponsor that person for residency. I'm not implying that they're doing it for a lark, they obviously feel entitled to come and apply for asylum (and if it's granted then they'd probably say that the shit they had to go through was worth it), the department obviously feel differently about their cases and unless the people who meet the current set of standards for being granted asylum are being denied it then unfortunately for the applicants then that's that.

Anyway, who is deserving? If you could be tortured and killed for political reasons you should be allowed stay, but if you might starve to death from famine you can fuck off home.

Nah, you should probably be allowed to stay in both circumstances. Actually in the latter case there's an obvious lack of debt relief/aid/etc that makes some one's situation in their own country so shitty that they feel the need to leave their home. However under the standards set by the government (which should be expanded) I'm guessing that the latter don't qualify and if someone applies under the latter grounds then they're gonna be denied.

If it can be demonstrated that >3% who apply fall into the current set of standards for staying then I'll give credence to the figure, but if that figure of 3% accurately represents the number of people who meet current standards then 97% is merely a number that looks impressive until it's questioned.

Once again, the system is shit, considering our history of emigration we should probably be more generous than we are when it comes to allowing people to come in here, but I fear that that's unlikely considering who is in power right now.

 

[Unicron]

Shit, I had a big edit there which I couldn't make as I spent too long typing it and exceeded the edit time.

Furthur to this ...

If it can be demonstrated that >3% who apply fall into the current set of standards for staying then I'll give credence to the figure, but if that figure of 3% accurately represents the number of people who meet current standards then 97% is merely a number that looks impressive until it's questioned.

At no point have I implied that that the 97% are "taking the piss" as someone who derepped me said and as I've no idea how many are I'll take it that those 97% genuinely feel they deserve to have it granted. But ultimately it doesn't matter why someone has been denied permission to live somewhere that they'd like to when you're dealing with an unfeeling buerocracy; be it a really serious reason like a guy from Nigar trying to escape the famine or something trivial like me having a girlfriend in New York and wanting to move there to be with her, not meeting the criteria for asylum (or in my case emigration/green card shit) is not meeting the criteria and that's just the way things are. My point was that a statistic is only a number until you actually examine the data behind it and despite whatever sympathies I might have for those seeking asylum or residency here I have little regard for an arbitrary number without being given any of the information to do with what it's based on, otherwise we're just looking at, as Twain said, "lies, damned lies and statistics". If 97% of the applicants were successful people would be saying that we've got an open door policy but that 97% would obviously have met the standards set. What's a good number to grant asylum to? 40%? 50%? 60%? It's just a number, it doens't mean anything.

 

[sarah]

Quite disappointing to see the level of political debate on this or even why it should be debated. Some of the guys have been in the system for over five years and if you are familiar with the asylum system and the direct provision programme that asylum seekers are forced to live under you would realise how humiliating and degrading the system is.

The asylum system is racist and designed that way, if you have ever been to the garda national immigration bureau or the refugee application centre with someone you will witness it first hand. Now with fast tracking countries asylum claims are being rushed and the more you get through the more you will get paid which loads of mistakes are being made. When asylum seekers first apply over 97% are turned down no one in their right mind could say that is fair.

With regards to the Afghan hunger strikers now- we have been meeting with them and organising solicitors and other legal advice and residents against racism are calling a demonstration outside kilmainham courthouse for the 19th of June at 10am for when the guys are back in court and we hope people will show up and give the guys support and solidarity.

p.s. dont believe everything or rather nothing you read in the indo or herald.

I can't really add anything to this specific debate on the afghanis... very difficult situation. But I do know the asylum system is hugely unfair and deeply confusing to someone who is irish (meaning the people involved in getting fair treatment for refugees and asylum seekers), but completely impregnable for someone who barely speaks any english.
A Georgian family friend who has been assisted in his dealings with the officials by my mother was refused his application and awoken (gestapo-style) at 4 in the morning taken away and held in a prison in dublin. It took hours of phonecalls and misleading information from the authorities before they would admit what prison he was being held in.
The people in charge of deporting people seem to operate similarly to the clampers... get in and out without any debate as quickly as possible.
The lawyer my mam hired to talk to this Georgian was delayed by loads of tactics from being told he had been moved to a different prison, to being told they don't have him on their system so that's why they thought he had gone... all this to stop the lawyer from getting defense material together before they can ship him off home.
it took something like six connecting flights booked last minute to cart this guy off home. A huge expense to the tax payer.
All this subterfuge and expense so that a deportation official can tick another 'to-do' off their list.

I don't think this seems like a very fair system. Or a very thoughtful and fair one. It's like the texans (another democratic part of the world) trying men with the minds of four year olds for murder.) There needs to be more transparency (sp?)