Their term of office will expire on the 31st of December and this will be the Dublin Government’s eighth stint at the Presidency since joining the then Common Market back in 1973. England voted to leave the European Union back in 2016 and forced, against their wishes, Scotland and the Six-Counties with them while many in the Twenty-Six Counties started, encouraged by so-called ‘Brexiteers’ like far-right MP Nigel Farage, making silly noises about us leaving in line with the UK. This would, in my view, be foolish because despite the EU being a capitalist bloc based on the principle of exploitation of the many by the few it is one of the largest trading blocs in the world and Ireland, or three-quarters of it, are better off in than out even under capitalist conditions.
Just for clarity and in case Mr Farage does not know, the Twenty-Six-Counties stopped taking orders from Westminster 104 years ago! The EU certainly strengthens European capitalism but it also gives the working-class of the member states easier communication with each other. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) represents workers at EU level representing 45 million workers acting as the primary voice of European workers in EU decision-making. Fortunately for British workers the Trades Union Congress (TUC) remain affiliated to ETUC despite the UK no longer being a member of the bloc.
The representatives of European business class interests will shortly be sitting at the table presided over by the twenty-six-county administration. Keep an eye open for some arse licking and backslapping as these self-interested capitalist brigands congratulate themselves on another successful year on the profit trail. This principle is no different to the practices of other large trading blocs such as the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) or the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) as these gangs of robber barons compete with each other dictating the futures of millions of workers. To ensure the protection of these representatives of native and overseas exploitation the Garda Siochana have requested assistance from the ‘Police Service of Northern Ireland’ PSNI (or RUC). Police services from Portugal and France will be involved in this security operation and that is just for starters. The Dail Justice Minister, Jim O’Callaghan, has already allocated €125 million for Garda overtime alone for the six-month operation which is likely to see more than a dozen high risk VIP summits. Perhaps the next time those far-right reactionaries - who blame immigration for social problems such as housing shortages - should cast an eye over these up-coming events and costs!
These European governments representing EU capitalism will continue pedalling the lie that it is the business classes which create wealth. They will occasionally point out how without these capitalist freeloaders people would not have jobs and it is they, not labour, which creates wealth. This flies in the face of the classical economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, all of whom despite a century between them agreed labour is the wealth creator, not capital, and despite being poles apart politically agreed on this aspect of economics. The reason these capitalists and their representatives try selling this myth is because they know full well that without their useless visages on stage nobody would notice their absence, they would be missed like invisible props, nothing would change in the appearance of the act, the show would go on.
The representatives of European business class interests will shortly be sitting at the table presided over by the twenty-six-county administration. Keep an eye open for some arse licking and backslapping as these self-interested capitalist brigands congratulate themselves on another successful year on the profit trail. This principle is no different to the practices of other large trading blocs such as the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) or the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) as these gangs of robber barons compete with each other dictating the futures of millions of workers. To ensure the protection of these representatives of native and overseas exploitation the Garda Siochana have requested assistance from the ‘Police Service of Northern Ireland’ PSNI (or RUC). Police services from Portugal and France will be involved in this security operation and that is just for starters. The Dail Justice Minister, Jim O’Callaghan, has already allocated €125 million for Garda overtime alone for the six-month operation which is likely to see more than a dozen high risk VIP summits. Perhaps the next time those far-right reactionaries - who blame immigration for social problems such as housing shortages - should cast an eye over these up-coming events and costs!
These European governments representing EU capitalism will continue pedalling the lie that it is the business classes which create wealth. They will occasionally point out how without these capitalist freeloaders people would not have jobs and it is they, not labour, which creates wealth. This flies in the face of the classical economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, all of whom despite a century between them agreed labour is the wealth creator, not capital, and despite being poles apart politically agreed on this aspect of economics. The reason these capitalists and their representatives try selling this myth is because they know full well that without their useless visages on stage nobody would notice their absence, they would be missed like invisible props, nothing would change in the appearance of the act, the show would go on.
If the proletariat removed their presence from the boards, strike action, the whole show would grind to a halt, the stage would be empty. Without labour nothing at all would get done which is why the employers are eager to implement Artificial Intelligence (AI)! Adam Smith in his book; The Wealth of Nations argued “a nation’s wealth comes from its annual labour, rather than its hoarded gold or silver”. David Ricardo in his work On the Principle of Political Economy added to Smiths earlier calculation by adding “labour time” to the equation, proposing that the “value of a commodity is determined by the average labour time required to produce it”. Karl Marx really summed this subject up in his work, Wage Labour and Capital chapter 2, put the icing on the cake describing “labour power” as the driving force behind wealth creation. Labour Power is the ability to work, to sell this ability to an employer as a commodity which the employer pays a monetary wage for, a wage far less than the wealth this collective ‘labour power’ has created. The representatives of EU capitalism will be sitting at Micheal Martin’s table for six months discussing countless subjects, wealth creation being one, which we will be told of only a few. When it is all over and cost an arm and a leg many in the twenty-six-county population having watched the sanitised version of events which will, no doubt, be occasionally shown by RTE look on with admiration at these wonderful people who they wrongly believe create wealth. At many of these meetings the self-deluding ‘wealth creators’, representatives of capitalist class interests, will be discussing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the cost efficiency of using these new marvels to do the work presently carried out by human workers. In other words they will discuss how many of their adoring admirers will be allowed to make a living and how many will not!
Back in nineteen-sixties Britain trade disputes were often reportedly resolved over ‘beer and sandwiches’ at Number 10 as Prime Minister, Harlod Wilson, invited the TUC round for talks. There will be no beer and sandwiches involved at the meetings presided over by the Dail government but perhaps huge banquets of at least four courses! These feasts will be paid for by the taxpayer, money which could be spent on necessary projects, and the EU leaders could have like Wilson and the TUC leaders, beer and sandwiches! Between them, the twenty-six-county government and the EU revisionists will continue to revise definitions within the political and economic circles of capitalism to benefit the bourgeoisie. It does not serve the minority class interests to tell the truth about wealth creation that it is working-class labour power which is the engine of wealth creation. The last thing the bourgeoisie need is a working-class which is conscious of the power it holds!
The €125 million is for Garda overtime only and how much more will be paid to the French and Portuguese governments for the use of their security services? The true cost of this operation will never be disclosed in case the people of the twenty-six-counties suddenly catch themselves on and stop blaming strawmen, immigration, for the societal inequalities faced by the proletariat and start looking at more realistic causes such as this obscene spectacle for the problems faced by working-class people daily. One subject which will no doubt be on the agenda will be ‘Irelands military neutrality’ and how to dump the ‘triple lock’. Now US President Donald Trump has decided the United Nations are of little or no consequence the EU and, in the case of military neutrality, the Dail government, may also now put the boot in removing the UNs mandate as a requirement of the triple lock. At the moment the triple lock requires, in order the Defence Forces can deploy more than twelve armed personnel on overseas peace keeping, firstly Government Approval. Secondly it requires Dail Approval and thirdly a United Nations Mandate is required. The government here wants to reform or dismantle the triple lock, arguing that the UN mandate requirement gives permanent Security Council members, like Russia and China, a veto over “Irelands” sovereign decisions to deploy peacekeepers. Note there is no mention of the US and UK in this explanation as they too are permanent members of the Security Council! Given the anti-Russian and anti-Putin sentiments across the EU support for this dilution of neutrality will be almost guaranteed taking into consideration the possible formation of a European Army which the EU are eager to have the Twenty-Six-Counties Armed Forces involved.
The EU is a large bloc of capitalist countries who exploit their workers to amass profits. It is no better or worse than other large trading blocs and, it could be argued, the EU is more preferable than some of its rivals. The aim here is not to be anti-EU but moreover anti global capitalism of which the EU is only one trading bloc, albeit a powerful one. A European socialist bloc would be far preferable and at least while we are inside the EU contact can be made through the ETUC with radical groups like the French CGT (Confederation Generale du Travail) to strengthen workers resistance in much the same way as European capitalism uses the bloc to strengthen the employer’s position. When the whole rotten capitalist applecart runs out of track the EU, like their north American counterparts, will be ‘hearing the death knell’ for the employers and their class. Until that time dawns we should exploit the possibilities presented by EU membership. We must use what we have and protest at the obscene waste of money on security during this term of Presidency while social needs persist.
I
Back in nineteen-sixties Britain trade disputes were often reportedly resolved over ‘beer and sandwiches’ at Number 10 as Prime Minister, Harlod Wilson, invited the TUC round for talks. There will be no beer and sandwiches involved at the meetings presided over by the Dail government but perhaps huge banquets of at least four courses! These feasts will be paid for by the taxpayer, money which could be spent on necessary projects, and the EU leaders could have like Wilson and the TUC leaders, beer and sandwiches! Between them, the twenty-six-county government and the EU revisionists will continue to revise definitions within the political and economic circles of capitalism to benefit the bourgeoisie. It does not serve the minority class interests to tell the truth about wealth creation that it is working-class labour power which is the engine of wealth creation. The last thing the bourgeoisie need is a working-class which is conscious of the power it holds!
The €125 million is for Garda overtime only and how much more will be paid to the French and Portuguese governments for the use of their security services? The true cost of this operation will never be disclosed in case the people of the twenty-six-counties suddenly catch themselves on and stop blaming strawmen, immigration, for the societal inequalities faced by the proletariat and start looking at more realistic causes such as this obscene spectacle for the problems faced by working-class people daily. One subject which will no doubt be on the agenda will be ‘Irelands military neutrality’ and how to dump the ‘triple lock’. Now US President Donald Trump has decided the United Nations are of little or no consequence the EU and, in the case of military neutrality, the Dail government, may also now put the boot in removing the UNs mandate as a requirement of the triple lock. At the moment the triple lock requires, in order the Defence Forces can deploy more than twelve armed personnel on overseas peace keeping, firstly Government Approval. Secondly it requires Dail Approval and thirdly a United Nations Mandate is required. The government here wants to reform or dismantle the triple lock, arguing that the UN mandate requirement gives permanent Security Council members, like Russia and China, a veto over “Irelands” sovereign decisions to deploy peacekeepers. Note there is no mention of the US and UK in this explanation as they too are permanent members of the Security Council! Given the anti-Russian and anti-Putin sentiments across the EU support for this dilution of neutrality will be almost guaranteed taking into consideration the possible formation of a European Army which the EU are eager to have the Twenty-Six-Counties Armed Forces involved.
The EU is a large bloc of capitalist countries who exploit their workers to amass profits. It is no better or worse than other large trading blocs and, it could be argued, the EU is more preferable than some of its rivals. The aim here is not to be anti-EU but moreover anti global capitalism of which the EU is only one trading bloc, albeit a powerful one. A European socialist bloc would be far preferable and at least while we are inside the EU contact can be made through the ETUC with radical groups like the French CGT (Confederation Generale du Travail) to strengthen workers resistance in much the same way as European capitalism uses the bloc to strengthen the employer’s position. When the whole rotten capitalist applecart runs out of track the EU, like their north American counterparts, will be ‘hearing the death knell’ for the employers and their class. Until that time dawns we should exploit the possibilities presented by EU membership. We must use what we have and protest at the obscene waste of money on security during this term of Presidency while social needs persist.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
Initially I thought this might be a 2.nd of Caoumhinn's articles I might agree with but he quickly lost me - in no particular order - first, the left mantra generates wealth and not rich is no longer accurate - the tech economy debunks that - ingenuity and entrepreneurs have created unimaginable wealth. Second, the EU is not a capitalist bloc like any other - the standards and quality of life enjoyed by EU citizens is unmatched anywhere else. Third, it creates a strawman argument out of 'far-right' extremism- the far-right' extremists are what they are - but dismissing genuine and legitimate concerns of the general public about immigration is disdainful and dismissive. The housing crisis in Ireland is real - and who is arriving in Ireland is deserving of concern - for example, if around 20% of asylum applications are successful that means (even deducting legitimate unsuccessful applications) a significant number are bogus applications - for example, around 40% of applications are refused because it turns out the Applicant is not from the country where they claim to have fled. Without quantifying, among that 40% are people who have criminal or terrorist backgrounds they use national asylum processes to hide their past by claiming they fled a war zone without time to get any of their ID documents.
ReplyDeleteChristy, "the left mantra generates wealth and not rich is no longer accurate"? What I said is labour is the creator of wealth. This applies today, differently granted, as it did in the days of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. You claim, erroneously, "entrepreneurs have created unimaginable wealth" which again such wealth is subject to the labour process involved in wealth creation. For example, AI does is not constructed by magic, nimble fingered labour power working in sweatshop conditions, being payed sweatshop wages, and living in squalor at every stage of AI construction the entrepreneurs you speak of exploit. Labour power is involved at every stage of construction not only of AI but all technologically advanced modern equipment from computers to driverless cars. It is true the face of the working-class, providers of labour power, has over the centuries changed as has that of the exploiters, the bourgeoisie, but the 'neo-proletariat, the modern working-class, are still the wealth creators selling their labour power for a monetary wage, even in an increasingly cashless society.
DeleteThe EU is a capitalist bloc like any other and you claim, with some justification, "the standards and quality of life enjoyed by EU citizens is unmatched anywhere else". True to a certain extent our standards of living are above that of many countries, but the USA can probably match and beat our standards of living and remember we are talking of the bourgeois standards of living. Ask anybody who is homeless and they may disagree with both of us because they have nothing at all. It is the distribution of this wealth created by labour power which is the problem, a redistribution of the niceties of life along in many cases with the necessaries, which many cannot secure for themselves, is essential, its called socialism.
I do not dismiss genuine public concern over immigration, I just think those who blame people entering the country for the social problems like housing are attacking the wrong target. This state has had a problem with housing since its inception in 1922 before one migrant had landed here. Houses were collapsing, like Church Street when houses collapsed early in the states formative years, due to the weight of bodies living in them. No migrants to blame in those days! Various government policies over the decades have added to the housing crisis.
Immigration has been handled very badly in the Twenty-Six-Counties in the governments hurry to be seen as Ukraine's best friends. Now, having invited these people in due to fleeing war at home the same once inviting hosts are cutting back on their benefits, a very cruel thing to do.
The Twenty-six-Counties are one of the wealthiest in Europe yet we cannot house all our people, and I mean all, indigenous and migrant. This is because the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people. It was never supposed to be distributed evenly under capitalist conditions, if people want an equal share and goods and services provided for all, they will have to fight for it. Perhaps it is time to close the doors on migration? By this I mean all migration, US, UK, Australian, Somali, Ukrainian, even Palestinian would this suit? Perhaps the gates should remain shut until everybody here, and again I mean everybody with no exceptions, are housed, employed, fed and educated then we can perhaps open the gates again? Contrary to idiot far-right propaganda population density in Ireland is not high, we are not overpopulated.
Caoimhin
DeleteI take your point about classical economists. But my concern is more immediate: when asylum and immigration are consolidated in public debate - they aren't always distinguished clearly. The State also benefits from blurring the distinction when 2 marginalised groups are pitted against each other.
The €125 million for Garda overtime while people sleep in tents is obscene. We agree on that. But the housing and asylum systems are inadequate on both simultaneously. While there is inequality in both systems the perception of unfairness toward Irish and EU citizens can be real - for example, when a family of 4 waiting for years on a housing waiting list see another family of 4 be housed within short period of entering the country can only be a punch to the gut. Dismissing realities like that as far-right concoctions is to avoid the issue.
As you are aware the EU's free movement and asylum policies aren't designed by workers. Defending the EU’s current migration framework as it stands isn’t socialism, it’s defending an apparatus that benefits employers by suppressing local wages and creating a flexible, vulnerable workforce.
Christy,
ReplyDeleteCan I ask where you got your figures for percentage of asylum seekers granted refugee status (around 20%) and the "around 40%" who were rejected "because it turns out the Applicant is not from the country where they claim to have fled"?
Does this figure of "around 40% of applicants who are rightly rejected include those who are originally from the county they say they're from but have been in another safe country for some time?
If your figures are accurate surely it demonstrates a robust asylum system in which the likelihood is high that those granted asylum are genuinely fleeing persecution and death? The rejected applicants are unlikely to receive housing.
As for criminals and terrorists. If they're denied asylum all well and good. If some get in and stay despite the system in place that is a travesty but like any legal system it cannot be right every single time. It can't be.
If we banned all asylum applications it still wouldn't be a perfect system in this regard and those genuinely fleeing persecution and death would be more likely to suffer. It is easy to have unquantifiable statements. The percentage of new arrivals who come in who are terrorists could be zero. As for criminality no demographic is free from crime. We're all human and many humans are flawed.
We are obliged under international law and some would argue morally obliged to grant sanctuary to those fellow human beings fleeing death and persecution. Like any other legal system all decisions can't be correct all the time but the system of interview/ tribunal is the most efficient way of judging an application both financially and with diligence.
3.7% of residential properties in the south are vacant. The governments north and south are not sticking to the numbers of new-builds they pledge to build. The housing market isn't regulated appropriately particularly the rental market. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to profit from our housing crisis.
I remember these figures when I studied Refugee Law as part of my LLM. Re: The 40% -that figure was people claiming to have fled a region - but who did not speak the language ot have the dialect or other feature that betrayed them - including having social media accounts that associated them with someplace else. I notice recent Swedish survey has found that 70% of successful asylum seekers in Sweden have returned to vacation in the same region they claimed they had to leave for their safety reasons.
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to an RTE article if it helps: https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2026/0624/1580162-international-protection-figures/?utm_source=perplexity
Christy,
DeleteAre you talking about the 79% figure widely shared online which has been thoroughly debunked? There are many sources explaining how social media users misinterpreted the data as a dog whistle to people who are anti-immigration.
https://www.euronews.com/embed/2746268
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0khx6s2?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
This BBC fact checking and statistic crunching podcast speaks to the makers of the Swedish Survey. The figure is actually 79% but the people fleeing for political reasons fled over the last 80 years or so. Some who fled from conflicts or for political reasons from countries like Yugoslavia or Chile or the fall of the Soviet Block that are now peaceful. Can people not go back to visit family in Chile now Pinochet is off the scene? Can people fleeing Yugoslavia in the 1990s who were granted asylum not go back to visit family now the war is over?
As Einstein said 90% of statistics are made up. Excuse the joke but statistics need to be analysed to make sense. I haven't seen any anti-immigration sentiment that stands up to scrutiny. I firmly believe we should see immigration as an opportunity rather than a setback.
The survey makers describe how the survey doesn't show how many recent arrivals returned for vacation but they explained recent asylum seekers are difficult to find for such surveys. A certain level of fluency in Swedish was a necessity. The survey maker explains that the survey doesn't show what people are claiming on social media.
They say the survey was deliberately misused and the survey maker says he winces whenever he sees the figure being quoted in this way. Musk was one of those sharing the figure which stoked anti-immigration sentiment. Based on a lie.
I can't comment on the source you remember from your studies unless I have it in front of me but the RTE figures tend to show a recent improvement to a robust asylum process. This can only be judged further in the years to come.
Simon
ReplyDeleteI had only saw the 70% claim fleetingly but what you say makes a world of difference - I added the RTE article as an update because the figures might have changed since I first heard them - but UCC was/is a leading institution on refugee law and advocacy.
Simon
ReplyDeleteI think you are missing my point- I am not arguing against the asylum system or refugees - the uncritical open arms of the extreme-left is not better than the closed doors of the extreme-right.
I did not quantify the number of criminals or terrorists who benefit from the asylum system only that it is a known security weakness of the system.
Apologies Christy if it seemed I was missing your point. The point I made in my first response was that no system can be watertight. All systems would have a known security weakness of criminals and terrorists. The unknown is the extent of how it is being abused. There is nothing to show that there is a better alternative than the current system. I think you'd have to be daft to have uncritical open arms or closed doors.
DeleteOf course the current system has to adapt to changing circumstances but the principle of providing sanctuary is sound.
Pointing the finger at the asylum system as responsible for the terrorist threat instead of blaming foreign policy is analogous to blaming immigrants as responsible for the housing crisis instead of government policy and an unregulated market.
Simon
ReplyDeleteI haven't argued for closed doors. Asylum where it is genuinely deserved is unquestionable. I think it needs be more transparent. And it can also create genuine grievances where an asylum seeker is housed within short period over countless Irish people waiting a decade or more on housing lists.
Part of the difficulty is that asylum also sits closely with immigration in public perception - partly because failed applicants aren't removed promptly but seem to remain indefinitely. That slow process consolidates the two in people's minds, which is what gives far-right grievance arguments validity.
You're right about vacant buildings, but many are derelict and unfit for habitation. Renovation is needed, but that doesn't solve today's homelessness crisis. Neither the homeless nor asylum/immigrants are responsible for it. I do not see it as a current solution because I'm not sure it's an economical option over complete new builds.
You make a good point about foreign policy - but whose policy? I would not agree Ireland is responsible for policy in the middle east for example. But many who come to Ireland are reasonably attracted by the welfare system or quality of life here. I wouldn't fault anyone for that, even those who might abuse the system. That human impulse is precisely why the process ought to be more rigorous, to maintain confidence in it.
Christy.
DeleteAbsolutely, I've always argued for transparency. No disagreement there.
Some people perceive that asylum seekers are taking houses locals are entitled to. Perception isn't always reality but transparency and explanation would go a long way to alleviate these fears.
I know you're not advocating for closed borders but is there anything you'd change in the current system? I think we're agreed on transparency.
This isn't directed at you but if people are entitled to sanctuary they're entitled to be housed like anyone else. Refugees have priority on the housing lists like many people who have lived here for generations as they have nowhere to live. Holding them in camps or putting them out in the street for example would be costly and self-defeating. It would cause more problems.
In the UK about 3% of social housing goes to refugees. Asylum seekers aren't entitled to social housing until they're granted refugee status. I couldn't find an equivalent figure for the Republic of Ireland. However, once someone gains refugee status they are as entitled as anyone else to be on the housing list.
People do believe that failed applicants remain indefinitely. How do they know this? Another perception which is why the transparency argument makes sense.
If the owners of vacant buildings were taxed high enough those buildings would soon be on the market to buy or let. Together with strong regulation and a forceful change in government intervention and policy these vacant properties could be part of the solution. Limits on residential property one person or one corporation can own would go a long way. People from overseas living in the house next door would be more welcome in my eyes than a corporation owning it, whether an Irish company or an absentee landlord in the shape of a foreign company or speculator.
People aren't as worked up about foreign corporations owning swathes of property than they are about a family doing their best to make it down the street. It's madness.
As regards terrorism, the Irish government allows rendition flights so people suffer horrific torture; allows weapons, bombs, military personnel etc. through Shannon airport on the way to destroy places in the Middle East. This would be a bigger invitation to ISIS or Al Qaeda style groups than Ireland's immigration policy.
The non-state belligerents wouldn't go through normal channels.
The US belligerents using state terrorism are welcome however, with their support of Israel's genocide, torture and their horrific bombing raids in Iran and elsewhere. Their bizarre foreign policy of withdrawing from the original nuclear deal to throw their weight around. The victims in the Middle East aren't as valuable as potential victims here despite the attacks overseas being very real. We welcome one terrorist but not another. Strange.
Simon
DeleteFirst change I'd make is reduce the processing from years to months.
Second: In May 2026, 26 States signed the Chisinau Declaration, including Ireland, pushing for a "re-balancing" of the ECHR's migration framework. The Declaration falls short on areas I think should be reviewed -in particular, asylum applicants can only be removed if they commit the most serious crimes. I think the high standard should be reviewed and lowered. In my view any applicant who commits a crime and, after conviction, is sentenced to 5 years or more should be deported where legally permissible. This would include convictions for causing serious harm, sexual offences, child abuse, or drug dealing and supply. Asylum law is technical, but if the criminal standard were dropped from "very serious crime" to any criminal act attracting a 5-year or more conviction, then, where legally permissible, they should be speedily deported and not allowed to linger for years.
These changes would also remove far-right fear-mongering because there is a public perception of inexplicable delay and leniency shown toward asylum criminality.
Simon
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in this: Trained members of the public to determine asylum appeals
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/trained-members-of-the-public-to-determine-asylum-appeals/5127199.article?_gl=1*13yheuq*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTEyMDkwMDA1OS4xNzgyNzU4Mjg3*_ga_LPF4PE6ZB2*czE3ODI3NTgyODckbzEkZzAkdDE3ODI3NTgyODckajYwJGwwJGgxNjQ0NzgyMjIw*_ga_VTZWF13LJ0*czE3ODI3NTgyOTIkbzEkZzAkdDE3ODI3NTgyOTIkajYwJGwwJGgw*_ga_T9B48VKB23*czE3ODI3NTgyOTUkbzEkZzAkdDE3ODI3NTgyOTUkajYwJGwwJGgw*_ga_54TJ9VJQYR*czE3ODI3NTgyOTUkbzEkZzAkdDE3ODI3NTgyOTUkajYwJGwwJGgw*_ga_M6CW48FCF6*czE3ODI3NTgyOTYkbzEkZzAkdDE3ODI3NTgyOTYkajYwJGwwJGgw
Simon replies
DeleteThanks for that, I did find it interesting. I found the comments at the bottom of the article useful too.
We'll maybe discuss this topic again in the future.
Simon replies
DeleteReducing the timescales is a must but I'm not convinced by the government's new plans to quicken things up. Every applicant should be allowed to make an appeal if there are grounds for it. I'm not convinced lay people who have limited legal knowledge (despite some training) are best placed to judge asylum cases.
As for serious crime, if we're sending any of these people back to a high risk or certainty of death/torture it goes against our stance of right to life. The problem is exacerbated if we factor in miscarriages of justice in these scenarios.
There have been quite a number of miscarriages of justice with people of UK and Irish heritage and refugees aren't immune from this. Andrew Malkinson who spent 17 years in jail as an innocent man or Peter Sullivan who was given a life sentence are recent examples of people cleared after miscarriages of justice.
If refugees are returned and are then killed despite being de facto innocent of the crime it would be a great wrong. If a refugee is a victim of a miscarriage of justice and returned to their county to face death or torture it would also defeat the concept of granting sanctuary.
I'd prefer to see a system that focuses on reducing recidivism but again, that's a different argument so I'll go back to the substance of your comment.
I think the UK law includes your examples of particularly serious crime and the sentencing trigger is 12 months or more. Criminals have been excluded since the 1951 Refugee Convention from refugee status and have forfeited their rights against deportation.
I don't agree with a 5 year cut off date. It seems arbitrary and unbalanced. Cases should be decided on a case by case basis and if someone isn't a threat to the public they shouldn't be deported.
Under your idea it would mean someone who carries out an action against property for Palestinian Action or someone else guilty of nonviolent crime who is genuinely remorseful and have lived out their sentences and who aren't necessarily a threat to the public would be deported purely for having a been sentenced to 5 years or more.
I believe the current definition which takes into account the nature of the offence as well as sentence imposed and the danger that person is to the community is much fairer than a blanket 5 years and you're out rule.
Child abusers, rapists, murderers, drug offenders etc go the nature of the offence. Many of these (murderers excepted but including the rest of the examples) would have been sentenced for less than 5 years and wouldn't come under your benchmark. However, under current rules, they still would be refused asylum and deported.
Under your 5 year idea many would be deported who shouldn't be and many wouldn't be deported who should be.
I agree with you in principle though - serious offenders who are a threat to anyone should be deported promptly.
As with all cases, there is often wriggle room for exceptions. Even non-violent, a 5 year sentence is quite serious so I would not be so quick to excuse their criminality.
DeleteI wouldn't necessarily excuse a non-violent crime, Christy. My position is the current definition which takes into account three things: 1.the nature of the offence as well as 2. sentence imposed and 3. the danger that person is to the community is much fairer than a blanket 5 years and you're out rule.
DeleteUnder your view any applicant who commits a crime and, after conviction, is sentenced to 5 years or more should be deported where legally permissible. That would mean a rapist who is sentenced to 4 years 11 months would get to stay and a rapist who is sentenced to 5 years is deported. That's arbitrary justice. A system where everything is taken into account- sentence length, nature of the offence and risk to the public is fairer, not just to the applicant but to society as well.
Simon
ReplyDelete5 year starting point creates certainty in law. Judges would be aware of the consequences of a 5 year sentence - if a judge gave a sentence just below the 5 year threshold - it would be interpreted as the judge thought it serious but not serious enough to warrant deportation -that would be the discretionary remit of the law and not arbitrariness you suggest.
Christy, sounds like it would be a mess. You would de facto be giving criminal judges power of deportation. You would be taking that power from the Administrative and Executive branches of government and giving it to the judges in a criminal trial. Judges in a criminal trial would inevitably be considering if an offence is serious enough to warrant deportation and bringing that into their sentencing decision. Surely the punishment should fit the crime rather than fit someone's immigration status?
DeleteThe problem with child abusers, rapists, violent criminals and everyone else without exception getting a bye-ball staying here under your idea if they receive less than 5 years remains.
I'd say if you are fixed on your idea and can't be persuaded otherwise I'd suggest having a combination of the current system ie. Length of sentence, nature of crime and danger to the public for everything less than 5 years and then all offences of 5 years or more bring an automatic deportation order.
Simon
ReplyDeleteIt's not nearly as complex as you make it. In borderline cases judges could apply their discretion- no different than judicial discretion applied every day in every area of law where discretion exist.
You asked, I told you the current criminal threshold is almost impossible to meet to get rid of people who should not be here.
But your problem.with my suggestion is that some pedophiles or others would slip through the net with sentences below 5 years - but at same time 5 years is too high a threshold? - Sounds more like you've an argument to make either way so long as nobody is deported. This conversation is over.
Christy says "Sounds more like you've an argument to make either way so long as nobody is deported. This conversation is over."
DeleteAre you serious? I've consistently argued that your 5 year cut off allows too many sex offenders off the hook who should be deported yet you say I've "an argument to make either way so long as nobody is deported"!
As well as that, in my last comment I suggested using a combination of your rule and the status quo so that everyone who'd be deported under your idea is deported PLUS all those who are sentenced to less than 5 years depending on the nature of the offence and who are a danger to the public. So by arguing you should use your idea plus deport more offenders I've "an argument either way so long as nobody is deported"!? Nonsense.
Simon
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, I was wrong in both misreading something and my blunt shut down.