Minister McDowell at it again

Hobbes

Degsy wrote:

According to the department of justice 98% of asylum seekers have no legitimate claim to asylum in this country.That means that they are bogus asylum seekers and that they are illegal immigrants.

Actually a person claiming Asylum is not an immigrant (illegal or otherwise). I wish people would cop on actually know there is a difference.

Also this money mentioned by the OP does not even go to Asylum seekers at all. In fact Aslyum seekers are not entitled to work/get dole or anything like that at all. Even attempting to do so would get thier Asylum request rejected.

Lastly your 98% is a bullsh!t statistic. While the number is exceptionally high it is not 98%. For example 2004 around 80% where denied Refugee status.

tbh

Degsy wrote:

According to the department of justice 98% of asylum seekers have no legitimate claim to asylum in this country

Source?

Degsy

tbh wrote:

Source?

Department of Justice.

tbh

Degsy wrote:

Department of Justice.

no, I meant *show* me the source. No offense, like, I'd just be interested to see that.

Degsy

Hobbes wrote:

Actually a person claiming Asylum is not an immigrant (illegal or otherwise). I wish people would cop on actually know there is a difference.

Also this money mentioned by the OP does not even go to Asylum seekers at all. In fact Aslyum seekers are not entitled to work/get dole or anything like that at all. Even attempting to do so would get thier Asylum request rejected.

Lastly your 98% is a bullsh!t statistic. While the number is exceptionally high it is not 98%. For example 2004 around 80% where denied Refugee status.

Yes a person claiming asylum is an immigrant.Asylum seekers arent entitled to work but they are "entitled" to be housed,fed and provided with an allowance(dole if you will).

Immigrant:
noun

1. Someone who immigrates or has immigrated.

Thesaurus: settler, newcomer, foreigner, ; Antonym: emigrant, native.


Definition of immigrant (noun)
form: immigrants
a foreigner who enters a country to settle there

tbh

Degsy wrote:

Yes a person claiming asylum is an immigrant.Asylum seekers arent entitled to work but they are "entitled" to be housed,fed and provided with an allowance(dole if you will).

An allowance of 20 poxy euro a week, remember. Let's keep things in context.

Degsy

tbh wrote:

no, I meant *show* me the source. No offense, like, I'd just be interested to see that.

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html


the 98% statistic comes from McDowell himself,i cant remember exactly when he said it.

Hobbes

Degsy wrote:

Yes a person claiming asylum is an immigrant.

No they are not. I noticed you looked up immigrant in the dictionary. Notice it says nothing about claiming Asylum. You will find Asylum seeker has its own defination.

Even so they are distinctly different legally in Ireland as well.

Asylum seekers arent entitled to work but they are "entitled" to be housed,fed and provided with an allowance(dole if you will).

Thier allowance is so far removed from what we refer to as Dole. Also what do you suggest we do with someone who claims asylum? Throw them onto the streets until they get processed?

Incidently most of those who claim Refugee status because they can't go back to their country, not because they want to live here.

Degsy

tbh wrote:

An allowance of 20 poxy euro a week, remember. Let's keep things in context.

They make the decision to come here,we dont ask them to come.Try getting 20 quid a week out of the US government and look at the wealth of that country.

Hobbes

Degsy wrote:

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html


the 98% statistic comes from McDowell himself,i cant remember exactly when he said it.

No where in that page does it say 98%.

In fact if you do the math..

38,950 = Total took in 2000-2005 (2% of total for europe).

6814 (refugees) + 617 (leave to remain) = 7431.

7,431 is 19% of 38,950.

This would mean that 81% where denied Asylum in Ireland so far.

As I said you making statistics up or misreading them.

Degsy

Hobbes wrote:

No they are not. I noticed you looked up immigrant in the dictionary. Notice it says nothing about claiming Asylum. You will find Asylum seeker has its own defination.

Even so they are distinctly different legally in Ireland as well.



Thier allowance is so far removed from what we refer to as Dole. Also what do you suggest we do with someone who claims asylum? Throw them onto the streets until they get processed?

Incidently most of those who claim Refugee status because they can't go back to their country, not because they want to live here.

You're being incredibly naive.They come here because thier friends back home tell them they can expect an easy life when they get here.The people genuinly fleeing war and persecution cannot afford to come to this country which is why we are left by and large with the chancers from the likes of Nigeria.There is a ring operating whereby people in nigeria can be brought to this country via several others and finally by taxi from the north heavily pregnant and make a claim for asylum hoping to obtain citizenship.They usually vanish into the system while waiting on the application to be processed and bleeding-heart liberal groups help them launch expensive court cases for them to remain here.

Degsy

Hobbes wrote:

No where in that page does it say 98%.

In fact if you do the math..

38,950 = Total took in 2000-2005 (2% of total for europe).

6814 (refugees) + 617 (leave to remain) = 7431.

7,431 is 19% of 38,950.

This would mean that 81% where denied Asylum in Ireland so far.

As I said you making statistics up or misreading them.

I actually have made a mistake.The figure of 98% related to nigerians,not asylum seekers as a whole.In your eagerness to prove how wrong i was,you've arrived at a figure of 81%.A HUGE majority in anybody's language i t hink you'll agree.Now,in case you think these 81% are being treated premptorarily and railroaded home.Here is the official process for dealing with claims.Please bear in mind that the applicant bears none of the cost for this process themselves.

http://www.ecre.org/conditions/2000/ireland.shtml

tbh

Degsy wrote:

http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/stats.html


the 98% statistic comes from McDowell himself,i cant remember exactly when he said it.

I can't see anything like 98% quoted there, but it does look like there is a very low percentage of successfull applications. Some other interesting tid-bits:

In the 5-year period 2001-2005
A total of 1,946,200 people sought asylum in Europe. 38,950 (2%) of these sought asylum in Ireland.
The UK, France and Germany accounted for a combined total of 881,940 (45.3%) Ireland was in 13th place behind the Czech Republic and just ahead of Greece and Poland.

966 asylum-seekers were newly recognised as refugees in Ireland in 2005.

The top 5 countries of origin of new asylum applicants to date this year are:

Nigeria – 557;
Somalia – 88;
Romania – 77;
Afghanistan – 57
and Sudan – 32


Under the ‘direct provision’ system, introduced in April 2000, asylum seekers are housed in shared, hostel-type accommodation centres across the country. Residents of direct provision centres are provided with food and lodging and a guaranteed cash payment of €19.10 per adult or €9.60 per child per week. In Ireland, asylum seekers are not allowed by the state to take up paid work – Ireland and Denmark, uniquely, have opted out of this year's EU-wide 'Reception Directive' which includes proposals granting (limited) access to employment to asylum seekers in the asylum process – and are denied access to third level education, regardless of their performance in the Leaving Cert. or their length of time in Ireland.


In 2004, the number of former asylum seekers deported (599) was 8 times the number who got leave to remain (75).

Hobbes

Degsy wrote:

HUGE majority in anybody's language i think you'll agree.

I never denied the count was high only that yours was. However you are still incorrect the percentage of Nigerians claiming asylum is around 80%. Still not 98%

But what is it you are exactly trying to argue?

Remember the OP was about a lump sum of money being given to actual refugees not Asylum seekers.

Degsy

Hobbes wrote:

I never denied the count was high only that yours was. However you are still incorrect the percentage of Nigerians claiming asylum is around 80%. Still not 98%

But what is it you are exactly trying to argue?

Remember the OP was about a lump sum of money being given to actual refugees not Asylum seekers.

No that the percentage of nigerians REFUSED was 98%.
I'm trying to argue that if you come here with a cock and bull story in order to try and milk the system you should get zero assitance from the government.The OP didnt say "actual refugees",he said "immigrants".Asylum seekers are immigrants in the sense they have come to this country to stay.If soembody is granted "refugee" status then they are allowed to work are they not?Well in that case why should they require a lump sum of money?We're all equal in the eyes of employers.Should not everybody on bad wages be entitled to a little cash "boost" every so often then?

Hobbes

Degsy wrote:

No that the percentage of nigerians REFUSED was 98%.

I don't see that figure there either. Can you point that out?

I'm trying to argue that if you come here with a cock and bull story in order to try and milk the system you should get zero assitance from the government.

How do you determine that beforehand? Treat everyone who comes as a chancer until proven otherwise? Like I said what is it your exactly trying to say.

The OP didnt say "actual refugees",he said "immigrants".

Read the news report quoted. It says the money is to actual Refugees not immigrants. I suspect the immigrant title is just to get peoples attention.

Asylum seekers are immigrants in the sense they have come to this country to stay.

If I was you I would read up on what an Asylum Seeker is. An Asylum seeker don't come to the country because they wanted to live here, they came here because they faced death or worse in thier home country.

IIRC most refugees return thier home country once it is safe to do so.

And pointing out the majority are refused just says to me that we have a good system in place that keeps out the chancers while ensuring those with real refugee needs are dealt with.

If soembody is granted "refugee" status then they are allowed to work are they not?

Once someone is given Refugee status they are given the same rights as an Irish person (don't recall on the voting though, probably not).

Well in that case why should they require a lump sum of money?

Probably because an actual refugee tends comes to this country with no money or items, and just giving them Refugee status doesn't mean we throw them out onto the street.

We're all equal in the eyes of employers.Should not everybody on bad wages be entitled to a little cash "boost" every so often then?

The OP (and yourself somewhat) seem to imply that "our own" should get the money first. Well if people bother to investigate it is possible to get money to look after yourself. However the OP seemed to be somewhat moot on what thier setup was which means we can't tell if it was geniune or they just screwed up.

For example, the tax suggestions I said earlier. I only found out about them recently. After I got it switched over I got quite a lot of money back from the tax office and nice lump of cash extra a month. There are probably more things I can claim for but haven't investigated.

Miguel_Sanchez

Degsy wrote:

You're being incredibly naive.They come here because thier friends back home tell them they can expect an easy life when they get here.

20 euro a week is hardly an easy life. And if 98% of Nigerians are being denied entry then surely word that would be sending a message to the non genuine Aslyum Seekers.

The people genuinly fleeing war and persecution cannot afford to come to this country which is why we are left by and large with the chancers from the likes of Nigeria.

Where did you get this from? There are many people fleeing war and persecution that have come to this country. I know some of them personally and they're not 'conning' me as you put it. Do you believe that the majority of Aslyum Seekers aren't genuine because of your stated reason above? Now *that's* naive.

There is a ring operating whereby people in nigeria can be brought to this country via several others and finally by taxi from the north heavily pregnant and make a claim for asylum hoping to obtain citizenship.

Didn't our recent referendum put a stop to this practice? I'm not sure but I think it did.

constitutionus

if you seriously believe the majority of asylum seekers are genuine your deluding yourself. its a con job and these guys are laughing all the way to the bank. you think 20quid a week is bad? try living on 1dollar a day. financially its in these guys interest to spoof their arse off for the three years or so it takes to get processed and exaust all the legal routes to kick em out in a loveley state paid house with all bills paid , a medical card and free education for the kids. and when your snared at the end of it? its back home to where your mates have been saving all the 20s youve been sending over through western union where you can then buy the entire village.

some of you guys said you know these people, well ive seen so much money flood out of this country by people who're "refugees" that the financial and legal sector have changed the law to hold ME accountable to their moneylaundering, not the company who makes millions in charges, me the fecking teller! you used to be able to send 6000punt out of the country with out ID 8yrs ago. now its 780punt (or 1000euro). some countries banks actually ran out of currencies so much money was being sent there!

the bogus aslyum seekers in this country are the biggest fraudsters outside of the politicians. its costing us in the region of 300 to 400 million and none of the politically correct muppets in power will do a damn thing about it cause they dont want to look "racist", compleatly missing the ****ing fact they are by treating these people differently than you or me if we tried benefit fraud.

if you people actualy knew what was going on you'd be appalled

*edit. by the way, in 2004? of the 4700 odd asylum applications only 400 odd were accepted as being genuine. thats 90% lads and if you dont believe me it on the CSO website for all to see.

oh and as to the original post i think it IS discracefull cause i dont believe this or any other government has the right to simply moneygrap private citizens money and treat it as gov expenditure. the idea that there isnt anyone somewhere related to the estate of the person involved is laughable. even if their the bastard secound cousin of the person they still have a better right to the money than the government.
it was bad enough when the banks covered the extent of these accounts up to shore up their profits but to have to gov just nicking it is sick

The things we think of to have a go at MM.

I heard he bought an Issues magazine lately. Shame on him, he should have donated it to a hospital beds fund...

constitutionus

Deleted User wrote:

The things we think of to have a go at MM.

I heard he bought an Issues magazine lately. Shame on him, he should have donated it to a hospital beds fund...

of course he shouldnt have. the real ones called "the big issue", he obviously got stung by a fraudster. more money down the drain

GenericName

While I wouldn't argue that all those who will benefit from this money don't necessarily have the right to be here, I don't object to them receiving the money.

Integration is extremely important. Without it, crime will increase and so will extremism in the forms that already exist in the UK and the continent. These people are here to stay. €500,000 is not a huge amount. Far cheaper than the repeating cost of poverty and seclusion would inevitably lead to. (Not that I mean €500,000 thousand is anything near the final cost)

Previous governments opted for the cheap option of building huge council developments like Ballyfermot and Ballymun when it came to dealing with a large group of under privileged families. Look how that turned out. A large influx of poor immigrants left without initial aid, and seperated from the rest of Irish society would mean walking that road again.

sceptre

hellboy99 wrote:

This should be used to help our own out first, I think it's a disgrace :mad:

Most of it has been.
Here's a quick press release from our press release government about the last round of allocations.

Delboy05

Hobbes wrote:

If I was you I would read up on what an Asylum Seeker is. An Asylum seeker don't come to the country because they wanted to live here, they came here because they faced death or worse in thier home country.

really...so explain to me how Nigerians end up in Ireland when there is no direct access to this country? Why do they pass through several safe countries before they arrive here if they're in fear of their lives?...sounds like immigrants to me

sceptre

Perhaps they fly direct to Belfast via Lufthansa and they're afraid of Protestants.

This really has sod-all to do with the initial point of this thread.

Are they immigrants? Yes. or at least prospective immigrants. Are they a specific class of immigrant? Yes. "Immigrant" isn't legally defined in irish law as far as I know, "asylum seeker" and "refugee" are.

Argument over as far as I can see. Anyone now want to address the original point of the thread or if you feel like it, my quick link to where another 36 million quid from the fund went which actually relates to the original point of the thread?

John_C

I can't keep track of modern, fast moving politics. Is McD a racist for proposing a referendum or soft on foreigners? Can he be both at the same time?

constitutionus

John_C wrote:

I can't keep track of modern, fast moving politics. Is McD a racist for proposing a referendum or soft on foreigners? Can he be both at the same time?

neither, hes a state sancitioned theif! its not the states money but theyre taking it anyway;)

bik_ireland

hellboy99 wrote:

I've nothing against immigrants willing to work but i do when it's ones that will do jobs for under the minimum wage, it is these people that are forcing more and more Irish people out of their jobs every month to go and claim welfare as they are better off, fact.
I was on welfare for a time up until last year and was getting more money than what i was for a 39 hour working week, i was far better off by a long shot as is the case for a lot of people on welfare at the moment.

- Wow. I do believe, however, Hellboy, that this is either a mistake, you were in a slave job, or you are lying. Minimum wage is 7.65 * 39 = €298.35 Were you earning (far) less than minimum wage? Or have social welfare payments gone up astonomically since the last time I've had need to know them? However - I do agree with the point made regarding the potential undermining of Irish pay rates if workers - no matter where they are from - will work for less than minimum rates. This is a good reason to repopularise the ideals of the trade union movement. If all workers were to gather together and agree that nobody would work with a person earning less than X per week / month your worries would be allayed. Messrs Larkin, Connolly - tar ar ais .. please come back ...

oscarBravo

bik_ireland wrote:

If all workers were to gather together and agree that nobody would work with a person earning less than X per week / month your worries would be allayed.

Then again, if all workers were to gather together and report an employer who pays less than minimum wage to the appropriate authorities, the same end could be achieved without further victimising the poor sod who's already being exploited.

I know, it doesn't lead up to an invocation of dead trade unionists in the same way, but it seems somehow more pragmatic to me.

Kevster

hellboy99 wrote:

This should be used to help our own out first, I think it's a disgrace :mad:

I think your opinion is a disgrace.

sceptre

Kevster wrote:

I think your opinion is a disgrace.

Care to elaborate? I don't tend to agree with the opinion of the original poster as I think it's misinformed (see my provided link) but I was hoping for more from someone willing to address his view. I wrote more when all I provided was a quick link.