Illegal immigration

Scofflaw

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'm unsure if Dáil Eireann can be considered non agenda-driven now,let alone in 2004,from whence this account comes....

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2005/04/12/00007.asp

Yes,it's from a decade ago,yes it features long gone Ministerial figures,but...apres les deluge,...??

Quoting figures from the height of the, er "asylum boom", and before the system had been upgraded does tend to tilt the debate rather.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Mind you by 2010,it seems we were still tring to get the floodwaters under control....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/just-23pc-of-deportation-orders-are-carried-out-2316905.html

We can put some solid figures in place on the scale of Ireland's asylum population, for a start - there are currently about 6,740 asylum seekers in Ireland, about a third of them children. The scale of concerns that have been expressed on this thread seems, therefore, utterly, even ludicrously, disproportionate.

And deportation is kind of interesting in itself, because there's something hiding in the figures used by places like the ICP. First, deportation orders have been carried out in 23% of case - a quarter, not one in five. Second, well, look at this:

In assessing the figures for 2010 the Minister noted that:

247 deportation orders to non-EU countries were effected in respect of failed asylum seekers, representing a small increase of just 4% over the number of orders effected in 2009. The enforcement rate for deportation orders, that is deportations orders effected as a proportion of deportation orders signed in 2010, was almost 30%.

142 transfer orders to other European States were effected under the Dublin II Regulation, representing an enforcement rate of 54% for effecting transfer orders signed in 2010. This compares to 61% in 2009, 74% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Ireland's enforcement rate in this regard is high by European standards and is due in the main to a number of strategies that have been adopted to improve the operation of the Dublin II Regulation in Ireland.

An additional 183 failed asylum seekers who would otherwise have been removed from the State opted to be assisted to return home voluntarily.

When voluntary returns, deportations and Dublin II transfers are taken into account, a total of 572 persons in the asylum system were either assisted to return home voluntarily, or removed from the State in 2010.

Something that's hidden in the claim of 1 in 5 deportation orders being enforced is that an enforced deportation order is only one route by which asylum seekers leave the country. And that's hardly surprising, because despite the low enforcement of deportation orders and the low acceptance rate, asylum seekers clearly do not remain in the country - since 2002, we've had 46,666 asylum applications, rejected something over 95% of them (that is, something like 45,000), yet our asylum seeker population is only 6,700 people.

Our removal rate, then, is something like 85%, because 85% of those asylum seekers whose application has been rejected are no longer in Ireland. It's actually higher, given that much of the last three years' intake won't have had a decision yet, and so are not yet rejected asylum seekers.

An asylum seeker population of 6,700, a removal rate of over 85%, and people make a huge issue of it? There's something here that doesn't match up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

AlekSmart wrote: »

Relative to,I would suggest,reality.

I would see almost no point in comparing Irelands acceptance statistics with any other EU or even broader European Country.

But I'm not comparing statistics.

It has been stated on more than one occasion, on this thread and others, that Ireland is a "soft touch" when it comes to asylum policy and/or implementation of said policy. "Soft" is a subjective term meaning little without some reference point, so the question is, "soft" relative to where?

AlekSmart

djpbarry wrote: »

But I'm not comparing statistics.

It has been stated on more than one occasion, on this thread and others, that Ireland is a "soft touch" when it comes to asylum policy and/or implementation of said policy. "Soft" is a subjective term meaning little without some reference point, so the question is, "soft" relative to where?

The essence of quite a number of interested responses to any Asylum thread,particularly if it involves the removal of any individual less than 100% fully physically and emotionally fit,is that we (Ireland teo) are being "Hard","Uncaring" or,as was widely touted during the Izevbakhai case,"Oppressive".

My personal view is that our low acceptance rate is quite correct and proper for a State of our size,location and current political,social and fiscal situation.

We seem destined to forever guiltily navel-gaze if we say NO! to anybody even when we simply apply our Laws as they stand.

It took quite some time,for example,before this,apparently guilt-ridden cohort could bring themselves to admit that in the Izevbekhai case the State had been correct all along.

What got my interest in this initially was the level of vehemence and detestation which some observers directed at those Agents of the State ,including the GNBI,for just doing their job.

It appears to be a common-purpose in these matters to seek to denigrate the State as a whole,by using our strict,but appropriate asylum regulations,to infer a National Indifference or bias against foreigners as a whole.

I tend to see this attitude as reflective of a national lack of self-confidence in our own systems,coupled with a need to be "liked" by everybody in a kind of grotesque parody of the well meaning "Help The Black-Babies" campaigns of my youth.

Death and Taxes

Is the Izevbekhai case all you can constantly throw up, it has been dealt with time and time again in this thread, she lost, she got deported, get over it and move on, please!

djpbarry

AlekSmart wrote: »

My personal view is that our low acceptance rate is quite correct and proper for a State of our size,location and current political,social and fiscal situation.

Ireland’s acceptance rate for asylum applicants has been low for quite some time – the current situation has nothing to do with it.

walshb

WileyCoyote (Accelleratii Incredibus!) wrote: »

Is the Izevbekhai case all you can constantly throw up, it has been dealt with time and time again in this thread, she lost, she got deported, get over it and move on, please!

Eventually, and after making a mockery of the system. Funny thing is, the woman should have been given a medal. She really did show us up as inept and incapable and lacking. Of course, with help.

Death and Taxes

walshb wrote: »

Eventually, and after making a mockery of the system. Funny thing is, the woman should have been given a medal. She really did show us up as inept and incapable and lacking. Of course, with help.

The system deported her, how is that a mockery!

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

The essence of quite (............) youth.

So subjective opinion + Ms Izevbekhai = "soft"....Not, I have to say, the most convincing of arguments.

AlekSmart

walshb wrote: »

Eventually, and after making a mockery of the system. Funny thing is, the woman should have been given a medal. She really did show us up as inept and incapable and lacking. Of course, with considerable help.

Just a small,but necessary, amendment.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

So subjective opinion + Ms Izevbekhai = "soft"....Not, I have to say, the most convincing of arguments.

Does it have to be all about "Argument",or statistics....?

It's demonstrably clear that some posters remain disapproving of any opinion on Social issues which do not dovetail neatly with a certain soft-hued viewpoint.

Then when a flagship of that viewpoint turns out to be one of mere convenience,we are told that it's only a blip..move along there,nothing to see.

I have no doubt that many would just prefer if the Izevbekhai case dissolved into the murk,and we could just "move along" to the next example...

WileyCoyote:Is the Izevbekhai case all you can constantly throw up, it has been dealt with time and time again in this thread, she lost, she got deported, get over it and move on, please!

I do realize the frustration inherent in this post,but personally I don't feel I have anything to get over,unlike the high-profile cheer-leaders who just could not bring themselves to allow the State's System to run its course without vigorously attempting to make a mockery of it at every opportunity.

djpbarry

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's demonstrably clear that some posters remain disapproving of any opinion on Social issues which do not dovetail neatly with a certain soft-hued viewpoint.

Then when a flagship of that viewpoint turns out to be one of mere convenience,we are told that it's only a blip..move along there,nothing to see.

I’m really struggling to understand what your point is at this stage. You’re trying to use one case as a representative example, without demonstrating that it is in anyway representative.

I also have no idea what it’s supposed to exemplify? That there are individuals who will shout “racism” at every given opportunity? Hardly news, is it?

ResearchWill

AlekSmart wrote: »

Does it have to be all about "Argument",or statistics....?

It's demonstrably clear that some posters remain disapproving of any opinion on Social issues which do not dovetail neatly with a certain soft-hued viewpoint.

Then when a flagship of that viewpoint turns out to be one of mere convenience,we are told that it's only a blip..move along there,nothing to see.

I have no doubt that many would just prefer if the Izevbekhai case dissolved into the murk,and we could just "move along" to the next example...



I do realize the frustration inherent in this post,but personally I don't feel I have anything to get over,unlike the high-profile cheer-leaders who just could not bring themselves to allow the State's System to run its course without vigorously attempting to make a mockery of it at every opportunity.

I dont think "It's demonstrably clear that some posters remain disapproving of any opinion on Social issues which do not dovetail neatly with a certain soft-hued viewpoint." I think some posters just want to know exactly is the issue.

Yes I believe every one accepts that there are about 750 thousand non Irish living in Ireland. I think every on accepts that about 50 thousand entered and many remain in Ireland through the Asylum process. I think many people accept that many of that number had no legitimate claim to Refugee Status. I would think that as a rough guess some 15 thousand of that number are now legally here some legitimate refugees and the remainder having got some other permission. I think many accept that about 20-30 thousand of that number and other illegals remain in the country. I think everyone accepts that the amount of Asylum seekers is dropping every year since a peak in 2003/04, and still dropping. I think everyone accepts that a number of people abused the system some caught others not. I think in light of the total number of non Irish in this country 750K that 50K (some now legal) is not a serious issue or at least due to the reduction in application is no longer an issue.

So what exactly is the issue.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, otherwise we get the kind of nonsense and blather thats necessitated a number of mod interventions so far.

Hopefully the mods won't be taxed by the recessionary news contained in this article.

It will,coincidentially,significantly reduce the "nonsense and blather" count in the RAT and The Courts in genaral.....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/barrister-earns-620000-for-refugee-appeal-work-3375212.html

Statistics provided by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner record that the number of asylum seeker applications has been decreasing sharply since 2002, when 11,634 applications were made.

This steadily decreased throughout the following decade to 1,290 in 2011 and the figures for the first 11 months of last year show a total of 883.

Mr Shatter told the Dail: "The number of cases and fees paid in 2012 has decreased by approximately 80pc over the 2009 levels."

The statistics are (as always) interesting,not for themselves,but for what drives them.

Given that Asylum is something which used to be sought as a last-resort by those fleeing persecution or warfare in their homelands,can we now take it that the World is now c.80% more peaceful than in 2002 ?

Or is it that Ireland has slipped down the ratings of desirable Asylum Providers ?

It was always questionable to me,that this small country,could sustain the sheer volume of applications which it allowed to build-up before reality reared it's ugly head.

Perhaps it was sheer luck that Irish cities and towns had plenty of vacant hotels and apartment blocks available to the authorities,otherwise we would have been back to tented camps in the ditches.

Either way,it's a small positive fiscal step which can only allow for a more realistic and sustainable Asylum system to be available to those who REALLY need it.

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

...........

The statistics are (as always) interesting,not for themselves,but for what drives them.

Given that Asylum is something which used to be sought as a last-resort by those fleeing persecution or warfare in their homelands,can we now take it that the World is now c.80% more peaceful than in 2002 ?

Or is it that Ireland has slipped down the ratings of desirable Asylum Providers ?
.....

Or is it that something other than adherence to the criteria drives approvals?

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Or is it that something other than adherence to the criteria drives approvals?

For many the realization that we actually had criteria was reason enough to become apoplectic with rage at the very thought that a Country would have such limits,and worse still seek to implement them !

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

For many the realization that we actually had criteria was reason enough to become apoplectic with rage at the very thought that a Country would have such limits,and worse still seek to implement them !

You can take that up with whoever, should they appear.

K-9

AlekSmart wrote: »

Or is it that Ireland has slipped down the ratings of desirable Asylum Providers ?

Our Welfare rates have mostly remained the same over the last few years, so it doesn't seem to be that much of a draw as many make out. At least that's one nonsense claim laid to rest by the figures.

AlekSmart

K-9 wrote: »

Our Welfare rates have mostly remained the same over the last few years, so it doesn't seem to be that much of a draw as many make out. At least that's one nonsense claim laid to rest by the figures.

Down for sure,but not quite out yet.

As soon as the non-domicilliary childrens allowance issue is addressed then may see a further re-entrenchment ?

Noel Kinsella

K-9 wrote: »

Our Welfare rates have mostly remained the same over the last few years, so it doesn't seem to be that much of a draw as many make out. At least that's one nonsense claim laid to rest by the figures.

Its still a lot more than the UK and several times more than France, Italy, Spain etc we are also MUCH more friendly than any other EU country I think there are 50,000 people that will agree with me or they would not have done the additional mileage to get here.

K-9

Noel Kinsella wrote: »

Its still a lot more than the UK and several times more than France, Italy, Spain etc we are also MUCH more friendly than any other EU country I think there are 50,000 people that will agree with me or they would not have done the additional mileage to get here.

But not that much of a draw to new immigrants.

Your and AlekSmart's inability to address my point makes my point true and correct. I'll expect everything else but agreement to that point.

We've had little cuts to our Welfare rates so we should still have high immigration. Don't sweat too much lads, one major gripe repudiated does not make a bad case put forward, just a major chink in the previously put forward armour.

We can now strike off Welfare rates as a cause and concentrate on others.

djpbarry

AlekSmart wrote: »

As soon as the non-domicilliary childrens allowance issue is addressed then may see a further re-entrenchment ?

Why? Pretty sure it only applies to EU citizens.

AlekSmart

K-9 wrote: »

But not that much of a draw to new immigrants.

Your and AlekSmart's inability to address my point makes my point true and correct. I'll expect everything else but agreement to that point.

We've had little cuts to our Welfare rates so we should still have high immigration. Don't sweat too much lads, one major gripe repudiated does not make a bad case put forward, just a major chink in the previously put forward armour.

We can now strike off Welfare rates as a cause and concentrate on others.

Divil t'Bit K-9,you can make whatever you like out to be "True & Correct" and for peace sake I'm sure Noel K,Myself and a few other misguided souls will nod sagely at your pronouncements.

You may also strike-off Welfare Rates at your will and bask in the reflected glow from the striking.....I'll hang back in the shade just a little,perhaps venturing out when the scale of the Republic's Welfare Net is scaled back at the same level as the Rates you refer to.

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Divil t'Bit K-9,you can make whatever you like out to be "True & Correct" and for peace sake I'm sure Noel K,Myself and a few other misguided souls will nod sagely at your pronouncements.

You may also strike-off Welfare Rates at your will and bask in the reflected glow from the striking.....I'll hang back in the shade just a little,perhaps venturing out when the scale of the Republic's Welfare Net is scaled back at the same level as the Rates you refer to.

So having nothing to refute the argument, its some sly and vague waffle.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

So having nothing to refute the argument, its some sly and vague waffle.

It seems to fit in nicely with the general tone so far ..?

Debate,discuss,venture forth opinions,all I would suggest fairly accceptable components of lively discourse....generally ok for myself too,but whatever floats your particular boat is OK too.

You don't really care for folk disagreeing with you at all,do you ?

AlekSmart

K-9 wrote: »

Our Welfare rates have mostly remained the same over the last few years, so it doesn't seem to be that much of a draw as many make out. At least that's one nonsense claim laid to rest by the figures.

It's arguable that our Welfare Rates have "mostly remained the same" over the last few years.

This stasis was'nt matched by the remainder of the Irish economic milleu,whose incomes declined fairly dramatically.

It can be,and is,argued that Irish Welfare Rates have actually increased when the surrounding factors are taken into account.

But to remain in tune with the "nonsense claims" allegation,
I think C.Gurdgiev had a good stab at outlining it in this 2009 blog entry..

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2009/08/economics-14082009-irish-welfare-rates.html

The OECD data was in the range of 2005-2006. Since then:

Taxes on work in Ireland increased substantially
Wages have declined in 2007-2008
Earnings other than wages (overtime, bonuses, commissions) also have fallen
CPI has dropped in July 5.9% yoy and HICP fell 2.6% yoy

So after tax returns to work have declined rather significantly in real terms - a good deal 10-15% for an average wage earner, depending on the sector.

In the mean time,

Welfare rates have gone up (since January 2009) by 3% nominally, or between 5% and 8% in real terms;
Indirect benefits rose in real terms, as rents fell off the cliff and not all these savings were passed on to the Exchequer - some of these savings could be easily 're-distributed' between assistance-receiving tenants and the landlords;
Black /gray cash economy is thriving, providing additional earnings to some welfare recipients; and
Costs of services to those of us in employment that are free to welfare recipients have gone up, implying a rise of benefit to the welfare recipients.

If anything,the 2013 situation may well be considerably worse in comparitive terms,but the article is worth a read anyway.

ResearchWill

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's arguable that our Welfare Rates have "mostly remained the same" over the last few years.

This stasis was'nt matched by the remainder of the Irish economic milleu,whose incomes declined fairly dramatically.

It can be,and is,argued that Irish Welfare Rates have actually increased when the surrounding factors are taken into account.

But to remain in tune with the "nonsense claims" allegation,
I think C.Gurdgiev had a good stab at outlining it in this 2009 blog entry..

http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2009/08/economics-14082009-irish-welfare-rates.html



If anything,the 2013 situation may well be considerably worse in comparitive terms,but the article is worth a read anyway.

The article quoted is dated THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2009, we have had the 2010, 2011, 2012 and the 2013 budget since then.

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's arguable ............ read anyway.

The flat rate has subsequently been reduced, as well as changes in childrens and rent allowance.

What - exactly and in clear terms please - has this to do with illegal immigration?