Phony African 'Asylum seekers' whining again:

Cora McGuire · July 30th, 2013

Quote:

A *nigger* family has taken a High Court challenge against direct provision, the scheme under which asylum seekers are housed and provided with a small weekly allowance while their applications are being processed.
The family of six, including four children aged between two weeks and 20 years, have been living in direct provision accommodation for more than four years.
Lawyers for the family argue that the scheme was unlawfully established and has no legal basis. They claim it operates unlawfully by ministerial circulars and administrative arrangements without any statutory underpinning, and amounts to a “parallel system” for dealing with asylum seekers.
Under direct provision, asylum seekers are provided with full-board accommodation, with the cost of meals paid directly by the State.

They are also given an allowance of €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child per week, but are not permitted to take up paid work.
The family, originally from Africa, contend there is no statutory basis for the payment of this allowance or for the setting of the amounts paid, and argue that direct provision, by excluding them from receiving basic social welfare payments, violates rights to private and family life under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to papers submitted to the court, the family also argue that key aspects of the system are in breach of the principle of the separation of powers and invalid given article 15.2.1 of the Constitution. This article provides that the “sole and exclusive” power of making laws is vested in the Oireachtas.
“The operation of the scheme is unconstitutional due to the lack of any originating legislative basis and the absence of parliamentary scrutiny or modalities for review by the Oireachtas,” the family argue. They argue that similar schemes for other categories of people in the State “are required to be, and are, placed on a statutory footing.”

‘Fundamental importance’ Lawyers for the family claim the respondents – the Minister for Justice, Minister for Social Protection and Attorney General – have no legislative authority to determine and control “such far-reaching matters of fundamental importance to the family, personal, educational and business/career lives” of the applicants.
Moreover, the family claim the block on entry to the labour market pending the outcome of a subsidiary protection application is unconstitutional.

Seeking leave to challenge the direct provision scheme, counsel for the family told Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh the case dealt with issues that “strike to the heart of the direct provision system” and requested the earliest possible date for hearing.
Referring to the “systemic challenge” involved, counsel for the State asked for time to consider the papers.
Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh said he accepted there was a “need for urgency” given the “unacceptable circumstances” of the direct provision system. He put the matter back for mention on September 17th.

So, if the judge does strike this 'direct provision', the precious 'asylum seeker' will now get the following, all from a bankrupt country of 4 million of which over 400,000 are unemployed, remember:

Jobseekers allowance
Social housing/rent allowance
Medical Cards (free medical/dental everything which they already have)
Other welfare payments e.g. exceptional needs payment, back to school allowance, Family Income Supplemement?
Childrens' Allowance

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irela...heme-1.1478939

john-connor · July 30th, 2013

http://www.politics.ie/forum/justice...-payments.html Africans asylum seekers challenge "direct provision": looking for social welfare payments

Here it is:

Asylum seekers take High Court action against direct provision scheme - The Irish Times - Tue, Jul 30, 2013

A family has taken a High Court challenge against direct provision, the scheme under which asylum seekers are housed and provided with a small weekly allowance while their applications are being processed.
The family of six, including four children aged between two weeks and 20 years, have been living in direct provision accommodation for more than four years.
Lawyers for the family argue that the scheme was unlawfully established and has no legal basis. They claim it operates unlawfully by ministerial circulars and administrative arrangements without any statutory underpinning, and amounts to a “parallel system” for dealing with asylum seekers.
Under direct provision, asylum seekers are provided with full-board accommodation, with the cost of meals paid directly by the State.
Paid work
They are also given an allowance of €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child per week, but are not permitted to take up paid work.
The family, originally from Africa, contend there is no statutory basis for the payment of this allowance or for the setting of the amounts paid, and argue that direct provision, by excluding them from receiving basic social welfare payments, violates rights to private and family life under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights
I believe there's no coincidence in this and former Supreme Court Justice Catherine McGuinness's public pronouncements, at a demonstration over a month ago concerning these very matters. McGuinness then argued against the direct provision system:

Next apology will be to asylum seeker children, warns former judge - Irish News, World News & More | The Irish Times - Tue, Apr 23, 2013

The Government will end up apologising for the damage done to children living in centres for asylum seekers, retired Supreme Court judge Catherine McGuinness has warned.
The system whereby families had to live in one room, were unable to cook for themselves and with adults not allowed to work was “highly damaging for children”, she told a demonstration outside the Department of Justice this afternoon.
Just as the Government had to apologise to people held in institutions and Magdalene Laundries so it would have to apologise to these children, she warned.
Up to 300 people marched from the Dáil to the department where they handed in letters from children pleading with Minister for Justice Alan Shatter to end the system, known as direct provision, which makes asylum seekers dependent on the State for everything.

Ms McGuinness said a challenge to the system following the referendum on the rights of children was “something people could look at”. But she added: “I would much prefer to see him [Mr Shatter]moving in a positive direction... rather than being chased through courts.”
And indeed that is what is occurring.

If you end direct provision, then basically that means granting asylum seekers many of the same entitlements that Irish and EU/EEA nationals enjoy, i.e.

Jobseekers allowance
Social housing (or RAS Scheme etc.)
Medical Cards (already have them, I believe)
Other welfare payments e.g. exceptional needs payment, back to school allowance, Family Income Supplemement?
Childrens' Allowance

99% of Asylum seekers are economic migrants, but without any meaningful qualifications. During the boom there was a need for extra labour (the media told us), but now there certainly isn't. So although they are seeking the right to earn money from paid work, in reality that means they are seeking social welfare payments because there is very little paid work available for them.

The asylum system is costing €700m...costs could well double if this judgement goes the wrong way. Asylum applications will soar again also.

concernedwhiteman · July 30th, 2013

These non-Whites think they're entitled to everything. You would think they'd be keeping their heads down and getting on with it instead of causing a fuss. They're asylum seekers who have probably spun some story about coming to Ireland to evade persecution or torture, yet they're comfortable enough to try and squeeze more benefits out of the country. They don't sound particularly grateful.

Something I don't understand is how these immigrants who are often fresh off the boat, already know exactly how to get on the welfare system and exactly how to obtain a lawyer to raise phony "human rights" objections if they face deportation. Someone is tipping off the immigrants as soon as they arrive, but who?

Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 30th, 2013	#2
john-connor Banned Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 7,212	http://www.politics.ie/forum/justice...-payments.html Africans asylum seekers challenge "direct provision": looking for social welfare payments Here it is: Asylum seekers take High Court action against direct provision scheme - The Irish Times - Tue, Jul 30, 2013 A family has taken a High Court challenge against direct provision, the scheme under which asylum seekers are housed and provided with a small weekly allowance while their applications are being processed. The family of six, including four children aged between two weeks and 20 years, have been living in direct provision accommodation for more than four years. Lawyers for the family argue that the scheme was unlawfully established and has no legal basis. They claim it operates unlawfully by ministerial circulars and administrative arrangements without any statutory underpinning, and amounts to a “parallel system” for dealing with asylum seekers. Under direct provision, asylum seekers are provided with full-board accommodation, with the cost of meals paid directly by the State. Paid work They are also given an allowance of €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child per week, but are not permitted to take up paid work. The family, originally from Africa, contend there is no statutory basis for the payment of this allowance or for the setting of the amounts paid, and argue that direct provision, by excluding them from receiving basic social welfare payments, violates rights to private and family life under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights I believe there's no coincidence in this and former Supreme Court Justice Catherine McGuinness's public pronouncements, at a demonstration over a month ago concerning these very matters. McGuinness then argued against the direct provision system: Next apology will be to asylum seeker children, warns former judge - Irish News, World News & More \| The Irish Times - Tue, Apr 23, 2013 The Government will end up apologising for the damage done to children living in centres for asylum seekers, retired Supreme Court judge Catherine McGuinness has warned. The system whereby families had to live in one room, were unable to cook for themselves and with adults not allowed to work was “highly damaging for children”, she told a demonstration outside the Department of Justice this afternoon. Just as the Government had to apologise to people held in institutions and Magdalene Laundries so it would have to apologise to these children, she warned. Up to 300 people marched from the Dáil to the department where they handed in letters from children pleading with Minister for Justice Alan Shatter to end the system, known as direct provision, which makes asylum seekers dependent on the State for everything. Ms McGuinness said a challenge to the system following the referendum on the rights of children was “something people could look at”. But she added: “I would much prefer to see him [Mr Shatter]moving in a positive direction... rather than being chased through courts.” And indeed that is what is occurring. If you end direct provision, then basically that means granting asylum seekers many of the same entitlements that Irish and EU/EEA nationals enjoy, i.e. Jobseekers allowance Social housing (or RAS Scheme etc.) Medical Cards (already have them, I believe) Other welfare payments e.g. exceptional needs payment, back to school allowance, Family Income Supplemement? Childrens' Allowance 99% of Asylum seekers are economic migrants, but without any meaningful qualifications. During the boom there was a need for extra labour (the media told us), but now there certainly isn't. So although they are seeking the right to earn money from paid work, in reality that means they are seeking social welfare payments because there is very little paid work available for them. The asylum system is costing €700m...costs could well double if this judgement goes the wrong way. Asylum applications will soar again also.

July 30th, 2013	#3
concernedwhiteman Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 72	These non-Whites think they're entitled to everything. You would think they'd be keeping their heads down and getting on with it instead of causing a fuss. They're asylum seekers who have probably spun some story about coming to Ireland to evade persecution or torture, yet they're comfortable enough to try and squeeze more benefits out of the country. They don't sound particularly grateful. Something I don't understand is how these immigrants who are often fresh off the boat, already know exactly how to get on the welfare system and exactly how to obtain a lawyer to raise phony "human rights" objections if they face deportation. Someone is tipping off the immigrants as soon as they arrive, but who?