Afghan Hunger Strike

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

16/05/2006, 10:03 AM
monutdfc

Afghan Hunger Strike

Surprised no-one has posted on this yet.
McDowell is refusing to negotiate with them. Is he Maggie Thatcher 25 years on? 3 brought to hospital today.

Apparently, for some of them it is not a case of having been denied asylum, they have not been processed yet after 4 years, during which they are not allowed to work. One blind guy was sent back and killed almost immediately. (Anyway, I support open door, so there's no point in me giving my opinions on what should happen. I'm sure this will prompt a debate and I'll read viewpoints.)

They are on a hunger and thirst strike - they should take water, that way it lasts much longer and builds up publicity and suspense which in turns garners more publicity.
16/05/2006, 10:18 AM
Ash

I'm not on favour of the open door policy as this country cant look
after its own people properly yet, never mind those of other nations.

I actually only caught the tail end of the story on the news last night
but McDowell was saying cases are dealt on a individual basis and not
in a group demanding status etc which I think is right.
(granted I dont know the in's and out's of applications etc but I dont
think this country can be held to ransom in such a manner)
16/05/2006, 12:09 PM
Lionel Ritchie

The one thing I've long agreed with McDowell upon is that he can't run an asylum system based upon who can organise the biggest most prolific protest.

Our asylum system should be generous and compassionate -it should also be more efficient than it is -but it shouldn't be suceptible to this kind of nonsense or there'd be no system at all.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of these guys cases or what the average time delay for a decision on an application is ...but I'd have thought if I was looking for asylum I'd keep my head down as long as possible hoping the duration of my stay would mitigate in my favour.

The Thatcher comparison is ridiculous as well as the two scenarios aren't even remotely comparable.
16/05/2006, 12:15 PM
monutdfc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

The Thatcher comparison is ridiculous as well as the two scenarios aren't even remotely comparable.

Disagree. Thatcher publicly stated that she would not negotiate, meanwhile the hunger strikers died* . McDowell has publicly stated that he would not negotiate, and seems unconcerned if the Afghans die.
*(allegedly there were 'behind the scenes' negotiations approved by her, but that is not certain)

Quote:

the two scenarios aren't even remotely comparable.

Not even remotely comparable??? hmmm.
16/05/2006, 12:40 PM
Lionel Ritchie

No -they're not comparable.

One involved poor political judgment on Thatchers Cabinets part -it would've cost them little by way of face and less by way of uniforms to re-instate special category status -christ if they'd played it right they could've let them wear their own togs and then make life considerably harder on them in other ways.

But no -Thatcher didn't want to be seen to be negotiating with them so she let them become martyrs and let the situation evolve where more petrol was thrown on the flames of an already volatile situation resulting in far more death, misery and hardship for ordinary innocent people.

To borrow a Sinn Fein catchphrase those ten lads deaths "were regretable" -but they got to decide the hour and manner of their own passing (how many IRA/INLA/UVF/UDA victims were given such courtesy I wonder) and as such I don't see them as being any different from your average mis-guided, misled Karbala Suicide Bomber.

McDowell isn't dealing with insurgents -but with people who are guests in this country and who are not satisfied with the manner and speed of the bureacracy they're encountering.
I seek to make no judgement either on their claim or the processing of it as I don't have the facts of either to hand -I'm merely pointing out the obvious -that if he caves in to everyone who doesn't like the answer they get or the time it takes to get it then the system collapses.
16/05/2006, 12:44 PM
hoops1

question

One question they obviously didnt get on the plane in Kabul and end up in Dublin why didnt they stay in any of the other
countries they came through?
One observation if you give in to them every chancer that is in the same situation is going to go on hunger strike!
16/05/2006, 12:51 PM
monutdfc

But it's not about caving in, it's about negotiating with them to stop the hunger strike.
16/05/2006, 12:52 PM
Anto McC

mod very helpful Anto...
16/05/2006, 1:09 PM
Lionel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by monutdfc

But it's not about caving in, it's about negotiating with them to stop the hunger strike.

What's to negotiate? You say some of them haven't even had their cases assesed yet. Is he to negotiate whether or not they're to be assessed?

And what of any who have been assessed and perhaps found not to qualify for asylum? What's he got to negotiate with them? "Our starting position is that you don't qualify for asylum but let's all work something out in the interests of a quiet life".
16/05/2006, 1:19 PM
monutdfc

Looks like McDowell has agreed for the Dept of Justice to meet them.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0516/asylum.html
16/05/2006, 1:32 PM
Block G Raptor

Im With Anto Mc On this.Hoops1 good point but to answer your question it's because this country has one of if not the least effective asylum processes and the most lenient in dealing with failed seekers.They know they will be here for years and will be provided for by the state for the duration. they also know there is plenty of dodgy cnuts that will pay them into the hand on building sites etc. Ireland is a soft touch for economic tourists anyone who thinks any different is Blind
16/05/2006, 1:40 PM
Dodge

Have you any figures for this Block g raptor? For Ireland and other EU countries.

Don't bother coming back on the thread without these. Cheers
16/05/2006, 2:09 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by monutdfc

They are on a hunger and thirst strike - they should take water, that way it lasts much longer and builds up publicity and suspense which in turns garners more publicity.

I agree with that. I don't know enough about these guys cases to comment on but as a Nation we are suckers for a bleeding heart story. We (as a nation) voted on citizenship referendum but everytime theres a sob story in the media we cave in.

Whats know with Afghanistan anyway? Didn't the US liberate it & now great democracy 'n all?
16/05/2006, 2:13 PM
Lionel Ritchie

I don't find BGRs contribution helpful either as it muddies the water between those who may need asylum and those who may be economic migrants.

The country has an obligation to look after the former to the nth of it's ability and a right to regulate and even cherry pick the latter in much the same manner as other countrys do.
16/05/2006, 2:14 PM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

I agree with that. I don't know enough about these guys cases to comment on but as a Nation we are suckers ----. We (as a nation) voted on citizenship referendum

Makes sense to me

Although the citiznship referendum would have made no changes to policy regarding asylum
16/05/2006, 2:18 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Although the citiznship referendum would have made no changes to policy regarding asylum

I only used as example that we suckers for the sob stories i.e. no consistency.
16/05/2006, 2:19 PM
Block G Raptor

Ok I Dont have figures. But if you think about it rationally Why would so many immigrants chose to come to a small and pretty much anomynous country on the western frontier of europe over say France, Germany, or Britain, if not because we offer them more. also the point made above about landing first in other EU countries en route.European Law states that asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first eu state they reach now i know a lot of Immigrants come into the country in appalling conditions in lorries etc. but a lot also come in through Dublin Airport which has no Direct flights to places like Afghanistan or Nigeria. I personally know quite a few immigrants who lived in britain for years and who admit to coming here because they get better social benefits. I would like to clarify that I have no problems with genuine needy people making a decent life for themselves in this country. I beleive the system is open to abuse
16/05/2006, 2:27 PM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

Ok I Dont have figures. But if you think about it rationally Why would so many immigrants chose to come to a small and pretty much anomynous country on the western frontier of europe over say France, Germany, or Britain, if not because we offer them more.

I'll ask again. Can you get me figures for amount of asylum seekers in those countries. I guarentee you the numbers in ireland are miniscule compared to France and UK

Quote:

I beleive the system is open to abuse

All systems are
16/05/2006, 2:27 PM
pete

Surely immigrants come here because too many jobs for population plus the wages here would be very high compared to their countries? Makes no sense to claim assylum in Germany where can't find a job if they approved. Even if they saved 10% of their irish income to send home that would buy a lot in their countries.

There is no excuse for unemployment in ireland today. I think we currently need more immigrants but we should have the option to reduce this level if when jobs start to dry up.
16/05/2006, 2:33 PM
Block G Raptor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

I'll ask again. Can you get me figures for amount of asylum seekers in those countries. I guarentee you the numbers in ireland are miniscule compared to France and UK

All systems are

You're probably right about the comparison with other countries. do you have figures? but Id imagine if it was taken or a per capita basis It's my opinion from living in Dublin(Again I dont have figures but I do have eyes and ears) that
we would have quite a high amount of non-nationals(for want of a more appropiate word) PER CAPITA

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page