Ireland to assist in migrant crisis in the Med.

Grayson

xhoundx wrote: »

Whats wrong with not wanting them here? We can't afford them, we have no jobs for them.

Let's hear your argument for why you do want them here.

Their country is a hellhole. They are dying on rafts in the med.

xhoundx

Grayson wrote: »

Their country is a hellhole. They are dying on rafts in the med.

Not our responsibility, there are many rich countries a lot closer to home for them to go to.

Oh yeah I forgot there's no welfare available there for them.

_Kaiser_

Grayson wrote: »

Their country is a hellhole. They are dying on rafts in the med.

There are people dying here too on hospital trolleys, on the streets, and in winter when they can't afford to put the heating on.

But yea, let's put the needs of people who have no legal right - or need - to be here first :rolleyes:

What is it with this country and it's insecurity/inferiority complex that we "need" to be liked by others so much to the point that we put our own citizens second?

As I've said before, charity begins at home and we have more than enough deserving cases here.

Egginacup

wakka12 wrote: »

Apparently. I think we should spend more money on lowering birth rates in these poor countries and improving life in there, taking in refugees is a drop in the ocean no matter how many we take. And its not sustainable.

Well up until now, Europe depended on Ghadaffi to do their dirty work by preventing the flood of migrants coming from all over Africa to access Europe via Libya. Now that NATO have gotten rid of him for their own short term gain Ghadaffi is having the last laugh:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8170956/Gaddafi-demands-4-billion-from-EU-or-Europe-will-turn-black.html

You reap what you sow.

Egginacup

xhoundx wrote: »

Not our responsibility, there are many rich countries a lot closer to home for them to go to.

Oh yeah I forgot there's no welfare available there for them.

Well it becomes your responsibility when you directly or indirectly support and facilitate the wholesale plundering of their countries leaving the citizens completely impoverished.

You see you can't have it both ways. You can't be an advocate of unfettered capitalism and then crib about the side effects.

You can't cheer on the death of Ghadaffi and then complain that he's no longer around to halt the tide of migrants through Libya, which is what he was doing.

MorpheusKnight

Egginacup wrote: »

Well it becomes your responsibility when you directly or indirectly support and facilitate the wholesale plundering of their countries leaving the citizens completely impoverished.

You see you can't have it both ways. You can't be an advocate of unfettered capitalism and then crib about the side effects.

You can't cheer on the death of Ghadaffi and then complain that he's no longer around to halt the tide of migrants through Libya, which is what he was doing.

http://gawker.com/5852384/muammar-gaddafi-might-have-been-the-richest-person-in-the-world

Ghaddafi was one of the richest people in the world. If they went after his assets, then there would be no need for them to come here.

It doesn't matter how much money we send in aid - it doesn't get to the people it was intended for.

Also, a substantial number of 'refugees' arriving in boats are from Eritrea.

When did we topple their regime?

Regardless - we don't want them under any circumstances. We have enough of our own problems without taking on any more.

There are 57 Muslim countries - let them go there.

We should only take genuine refugees - the ones being cleansed out of the ME.

Nodin

IrishTrajan wrote: »

€19 a week is more than I have the end of the week quite often. .

Ye martyr ye.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Tell you what, if you solve the housing problem, the deficit, the cluster**** that is the HSE, the lack of funding for mental health and State services, the homeless problem and our greying population, and I'll be all fúcking ears to taking in a couple thousand more migrants..

Didn't we establish earlier we weren't taking in thousands?

Gatling

Nodin wrote: »

Ye martyr ye.


Didn't we establish earlier we weren't taking in thousands?

Who said we aren't taking in thousands exactly

frostyjacks

It'll start off with a trickle, then become a flood once they find out how much of a soft touch we are.

stevedublin

frostyjacks wrote: »

It'll start off with a trickle, then become a flood once they find out how much of a soft touch we are.

Just like the Irish emigrating to the US during the 19th century.

xhoundx

Egginacup wrote: »

Well it becomes your responsibility when you directly or indirectly support and facilitate the wholesale plundering of their countries leaving the citizens completely impoverished.

You see you can't have it both ways. You can't be an advocate of unfettered capitalism and then crib about the side effects.

You can't cheer on the death of Ghadaffi and then complain that he's no longer around to halt the tide of migrants through Libya, which is what he was doing.

What a load of waffle

xhoundx

stevedublin wrote: »

Just like the Irish emigrating to the US during the 19th century.

This argument has already been debunked earlier in the thread, do try and keep up

Greenmachine

Send tug ships where the boats are setting sail and bring back whence they came.
Would not want to see anyone drown at sea, but we can't just open the floodgates.

Nodin

Gatling wrote: »

Who said we aren't taking in thousands exactly

They said they were resettling 5,000 across the EU. Doubtless we'll only get a few hundred.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=95486825

stevedublin

xhoundx wrote: »

This argument has already been debunked earlier in the thread, do try and keep up

so the Irish didn't emigrate en masse to the US?
Noooo! my history teacher LIED to meeeee!

Gatling

Nodin wrote: »

They said they were resettling 5,000 across the EU. Doubtless we'll only get a few hundred.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=95486825

Considering the current numbers and the likes of Germany happily reminding us they took in 250,000 last year .I'd certainly wouldn't believe there only planning on resettlement of 5000 .

Gatling

stevedublin wrote: »

so the Irish didn't emigrate en masse to the US?
Noooo! my history teacher LIED to meeeee!

They went to a country with nothing and got nothing on arrival .

We have to give social welfare and social housing .
And when asylum seekers repeatedly break laws were told we have to keep them here under misguided human rights

xhoundx

stevedublin wrote: »

so the Irish didn't emigrate en masse to the US?
Noooo! my history teacher LIED to meeeee!

If you can't figure out the difference between irish emigrating to developing countries to work and build roads, cities, rail roads, fight wars, and immigrants coming here to live off the taxpayers of Ireland, then it appears your education was wasted on you

blatantrereg

bjork wrote: »

Cons
No Jobs
No schools
No health service (just after reading we'll be outsourcing our patients abroad)
No housing
No money.............

Pros
?

Pro: Dispossessed people get some sort of basic quality of life.

Jobs: The government could just as easily create low paying but useful jobs as give handouts. For example the grass in my estate is never cut unless residents pay someone to do it.

Health service: There are loads of doctors in Romania who work for wages menial workers would scoff at here. However our system is crap so we have too few doctors here who are overworked and overpaid rather than bringing in enough skilled workers.

Housing: How is there not housing? I thought there was plenty of empty houses and ghost estates now. Do you think that they need to be given accommodation in Dublin 4 or something?

Money: Improving throughput in processing asylum seekers and cutting out inflated legal teams for simple cases would save lots of money. As would increasing the number of doctors and not paying huge overtime.

conorhal

Gatling wrote: »

Considering the current numbers and the likes of Germany happily reminding us they took in 250,000 last year .I'd certainly wouldn't believe there only planning on resettlement of 5000 .

It's the most disingenuous number quoted about immigration since Dermot Ahern told people to stop being such xenophobic worriers, shure only a couple of thousand Eastern Europeans were likely to arrive if we don't restrict immigration from the accession states. Ten years and a quater of a million immigrants later........

What they are referring to is an opening gambit to take 20,000 refugees from refugee camps managed by the UN under their resettlement program. That has nothing to do with those crossing the Med, in other words, they want us to take more who haven't even gotten on a boat.
Of those crossing the Med they want us to take a percentage, probably about 1%, but with numbers crossing there alone likely to top 180,000 this year you're talking 1,800 on top of the 570 we've already agreed to take from the UN resettlement program so far this year. Then there's those no crossing the Med but coming over land. Are they also likely to be included in the quotas? If so you can multiply that number by six or seven.
None of that includes the 4,000 curently in reception centers here currently, nor does it include the resettlement rights for the families of those accepted which average 3 people for every asylum seeker accepted.

The real problem here is the idiot Italian left wing government who decriminalized illegal immigration, so if you land in Italy you can't be detained or arrested. What could go wrong?

bjork

blatantrereg wrote: »

Pro: Dispossessed people get some sort of basic quality of life.

Jobs: The government could just as easily create low paying but useful jobs as give handouts. For example the grass in my estate is never cut unless residents pay someone to do it.

Health service: There are loads of doctors in Romania who work for wages menial workers would scoff at here. However our system is crap so we have too few doctors here who are overworked and overpaid rather than bringing in enough skilled workers.

Housing: How is there not housing? I thought there was plenty of empty houses and ghost estates now. Do you think that they need to be given accommodation in Dublin 4 or something?

Money: Improving throughput in processing asylum seekers and cutting out inflated legal teams for simple cases would save lots of money. As would increasing the number of doctors and not paying huge overtime.

Were's the money going to come from to pay all these migrant to cut grass? Insurance? Equipment? Training?

If they don't want to cut the grass in your estate, what then? Do we force them to? Cut off their benefits? Load them back on the boat?



Your are going to stick them living in half build ghost estates? What about their human rights? Where? Are these not dangerous sites? building sites would be dangerous for children. Or do we we shove them in. What if they don't want to live in your half built houses? Remember the crowd that wouldn't get off the bus in Sweden because it was too cold.

Are there many Romanian Doctors on these boats?


Legal appeal is their human right, yet again you want to stamp on their human rights

Nodin

Gatling wrote: »

They went to a country with nothing and got nothing on arrival .

We have to give social welfare and social housing .
And when asylum seekers repeatedly break laws were told we have to keep them here under misguided human rights

They get 19 euro a week, not the usual social welare. They do not go on the housing list.

IrishTrajan

Egginacup wrote: »

Well it becomes your responsibility when you directly or indirectly support and facilitate the wholesale plundering of their countries leaving the citizens completely impoverished.

You see you can't have it both ways. You can't be an advocate of unfettered capitalism and then crib about the side effects.

You can't cheer on the death of Ghadaffi and then complain that he's no longer around to halt the tide of migrants through Libya, which is what he was doing.

Ah, yes. I forgot that the Irish military was involved. Our propellor driven biplanes and Cessnas were instrumental in the bombing runs. Ireland had nothing to do with Libya. That was NATO. However, this is an EU proposed scheme, with nothing to do with NATO.

Cheering on the death? Do you think all of these migrants are Libyan? There's Pakistani, Afghani, Syrian, Iraqi, Somali... It's not just the result of the Libya bombing. It is economic migration from poor African or Asian countries to wealthy European countries.

Should we help them? Yes. Should we wantonly open the doors like Sweden and Germany did? Absolutely not. We should help by sending them foreign aid and investing in their country, so that the root of the problem (economic woes) is solved. Not by taking them in, ignoring the problem and taking more in at a future time because "their country is a hellhole".

bjork

Nodin wrote: »

They get 19 euro a week, not the usual social welare. They do not go on the housing list.

Full housing, food, medical and clothes paid for

MorpheusKnight

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Ah, yes. I forgot that the Irish military was involved. Our propellor driven biplanes and Cessnas were instrumental in the bombing runs. Ireland had nothing to do with Libya. That was NATO. However, this is an EU proposed scheme, with nothing to do with NATO.

Cheering on the death? Do you think all of these migrants are Libyan? There's Pakistani, Afghani, Syrian, Iraqi, Somali... It's not just the result of the Libya bombing. It is economic migration from poor African or Asian countries to wealthy European countries.

Should we help them? Yes. Should we wantonly open the doors like Sweden and Germany did? Absolutely not. We should help by sending them foreign aid and investing in their country, so that the root of the problem (economic woes) is solved. Not by taking them in, ignoring the problem and taking more in at a future time because "their country is a hellhole".

The foreign aid does not get to them. It goes to private bank accounts in Switzerland, food goes to feeding of military and arms purchases.

conorhal

Nodin wrote: »

They get 19 euro a week, not the usual social welare. They do not go on the housing list.

While in a reception center if their claim is being disputed or investigated, an accepted refugee is entitled to the works.

blatantrereg

bjork wrote: »

Were's the money going to come from to pay all these migrant to cut grass? Insurance? Equipment? Training?

If they don't want to cut the grass in your estate, what then? Do we force them to? Cut off their benefits? Load them back on the boat?



Your are going to stick them living in half build ghost estates? What about their human rights? Where? Are these not dangerous sites? building sites would be dangerous for children. Or do we we shove them in. What if they don't want to live in your half built houses? Remember the crowd that wouldn't get off the bus in Sweden because it was too cold.

Are there many Romanian Doctors on these boats?


Legal appeal is their human right, yet again you want to stamp on their human rights

Not stamping on anyone's human rights. Wasn't suggesting they live in half-built houses or building sites.

Cutting benefits for refusing work is utterly reasonable.

Never suggested there are Romanian docs on the boats. Pointed out another way in which the system is inefficient, and that this is really the source of the problems, and what should be getting addressed.

Never said they can't appeal. One appeal is fine. Sponsoring huge legal fees is ridiculous, as are appeals drawn out over years. Very straightforward case to prove - that they are members of a group suffering persecution. If they can't prove it after two goes then they are probably lying. No amount of money will make a perfect legal system - keeping things simple will be most effective and most humane and accurate in results.

How much training do you think is needed to cut grass ffs.

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

Ye martyr ye.

Martyr? No, we can't all live in gated communities on our father's trust fund. There's a great many people in a lot worse conditions than me. But if you think taking in migrants makes their financial burden easier rather than harder, then you're a twit.

Nodin wrote: »

Didn't we establish earlier we weren't taking in thousands?

272 per 20,000, no?

If Britain refuses to sign, our quota goes up to accommodate for the refusal. so even saying 300 per 20,000. If there's a million people waiting to cross, that's in the region of around 15,000.

bjork

blatantrereg wrote: »

Not stamping on anyone's human rights. Wasn't suggesting they live in half-built houses or building sites.

Cutting benefits for refusing work is utterly reasonable.

Never suggested there are Romanian docs on the boats. Pointed out another way in which the system is inefficient, and that this is really the source of the problems, and what should be getting addressed.

Never said they can't appeal. One appeal is fine. Sponsoring huge legal fees is ridiculous, as are appeals drawn out over years. Very straightforward case to prove - that they are members of a group suffering persecution. If they can't prove it after two goes then they are probably lying. No amount of money will make a perfect legal system - keeping things simple will be most effective and most humane and accurate in results.

How much training do you think is needed to cut grass ffs.

Most the Ghost estates left are half built sites.

If you cut their benefits, they'll get money elsewhere, same as why we can't cut our own less deserving welfare recipients benefits.


A skills appeal in Roamania for doctors? perhaps, but will it really solve the HS issues? Also consider interpreters etc for both the doctors and the asylum seekers


Agreed, The appeals process as it stands is a joke



How much training? You tell that to the insurance company where they're paying out a lad who managed to cut off his leg. Is there much grass is Syria and Libya?

blatantrereg

bjork wrote: »

Most the Ghost estates left are half built sites.

If you cut their benefits, they'll get money elsewhere, same as why we can't cut our own less deserving welfare recipients benefits.


A skills appeal in Roamania for doctors? perhaps, but will it really solve the HS issues? Also consider interpreters etc for both the doctors and the asylum seekers


Agreed, The appeals process as it stands is a joke



How much training? You tell that to the insurance company where they're paying out a lad who managed to cut off his leg. Is there much grass is Syria and Libya?

plenty of Romanian docs are fluent in English. The general level of English proficiency there is high and doctors are well educated.

If it's easier and less risky to get money via criminal means than by working that indicates something wrong with the system. There might be some truth in your perception that some people are basically paid off so they don't engage in antisocial behaviour, but it certainly is not an optimal situation.

Idea of someone cutting off their own leg with a regular push lawnmower is absurd. Redundant manpower removes need for tools beyond this. Frivolous absurd lawsuits do occur and occasionally succeed - again this is something in the system to fix. Cutting grass is an arbitrary example in any case; anyone can pick up litter or clean wihout risk or training, as another arbitrary example. Forestconservation work; animal care...plenty of potential useful work. Plenty of people would prefer doing it to handouts also.

wakka12

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

The Swedes are coming around. They're starting to see the consequences of taking in refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ireland badly need a right wing party like the Swedish Democrats and UKIP, there is definitely demand for it as we know that Ireland will become like Britain in the next few decades.

It will be too late. Everyone will want to play the good samaritan until theres hundreds of thousands of refugees here doing no good what so ever for our country and then they'll want change. But you can't exactly deport them once they're here legally

jackofalltrades

Gatling wrote: »

They went to a country with nothing and got nothing on arrival .

We have to give social welfare and social housing .
And when asylum seekers repeatedly break laws were told we have to keep them here under misguided human rights

Nodin wrote: »

They get 19 euro a week, not the usual social welare. They do not go on the housing list.

His point still stands. We have a duty of care to people in this country.
The same didn't exist in 19th century America.

Asylum seekers receive social welfare and social housing.

Nodin

bjork wrote: »

Full housing, food, medical and clothes paid for

"full housing" being whatever they are put in - sometimes 4 and 5 to a room, food being whatever they are given.

conorha wrote:

While in a reception center if their claim is being disputed or investigated, an
accepted refugee is entitled to the works

If you've been granted refugee status, what would you be disputing, exactly, seeing as that would be what they were applying for?

Irish Trajan wrote:

If there's a million people waiting to cross, that's in the region of around
15,000.

"if"

All coming this year, are they?

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

His point still stands. .

It doesn't, because it is not true.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The same didn't exist in 19th century America..

Neither did womens voting rights, anti-biotics, much of modern painkillers.....what are you trying to say?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Asylum seekers receive social welfare and social housing.

They do not, as clarified before.

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

It doesn't, because it is not true.


Neither did womens voting rights, anti-biotics, much of modern painkillers.....what are you trying to say?



They do not, as clarified before.

If the state provides housing for needy people it's called social housing.
Any benefit it provides to needy people is social welfare.

So yes his points still stand, you can't compare countries that provide for asylum seekers or refugees and ones that don't.
If 19th century America had to provide the level of social care that we do in this country today, then they would not have been as welcoming as they had been.

IrishTrajan

Nodin wrote: »

"if"

All coming this year, are they?

Ah, yes. Taking in thousands is not the same as taking in thousands. Thank you for your wondrous insight.

7000 people crossed in 3 days, and that level will probably increase within a matter of weeks as summer comes and the seas calm. The projections are that more people will cross this year than last, and even more next year unless we find a way to deal with the problem.

Do you think the Government is suddenly going to close the deficit and be able to put more money into the construction of housing, the HSE, Social Welfare and other such services to cope with 15,000 more people by the end of this year? If not, then your "this year" point is pointless. Pressure on a State running a deficit is still pressure on a State running a deficit, regardless of whether we take in only 1000 every year. It is an accumulation.

We have 5000 people on the waiting list for houses, you think they're suddenly going to get houses with time to spare for the 15,000 illegal immigrants that will be sent here if these measures are introduced?


But of course, you don't want to deal with facts, you want to deal in notions of lofty idealism.

MathDebater

We are taking 272 per 20k. It sounds small fry.

We know that 170k were rescued by the Italians for far. We know that 3,600 were rescued in the last 48 hours. We know that up to a million are waiting in Libyas port towns, for the chance to make the crossing.

Our quota looks fairly low. But with the numbers involved, it will multiply exponentially. Why our government agreed to such a quota system, whe we have an opt out, is baffling.

bjork

Nodin wrote: »

"full housing" being whatever they are put in - sometimes 4 and 5 to a room, food being whatever they are given.


....

Yes, not like the 1 -3 room "mansions" they left behind


Arranged marriages and marrying your first cousin is common in Syria. Will we have to let them marry their cousins here?

Gatling

Nodin wrote: »

They get 19 euro a week, not the usual social welare. They do not go on the housing list.

Only if there in direct provision .

Other than that it's welcome to Ireland here's 188pw and access to social housing and if you want a passport we'll give you one for free .

Using the old sure they only get €19 per week per adult and €9pw per child .
150 million pa to house 5000
4 square hot meals per day including school lunches for kids .
Clothing .
Free legal aid 6 million euro pa .

So it's not just a paltry €19 pw is it

Egginacup

MorpheusKnight wrote: »

http://gawker.com/5852384/muammar-gaddafi-might-have-been-the-richest-person-in-the-world

Ghaddafi was one of the richest people in the world. If they went after his assets, then there would be no need for them to come here.

It doesn't matter how much money we send in aid - it doesn't get to the people it was intended for.

Also, a substantial number of 'refugees' arriving in boats are from Eritrea.

When did we topple their regime?

Regardless - we don't want them under any circumstances. We have enough of our own problems without taking on any more.

There are 57 Muslim countries - let them go there.

We should only take genuine refugees - the ones being cleansed out of the ME.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Egginacup

xhoundx wrote: »

If you can't figure out the difference between irish emigrating to developing countries to work and build roads, cities, rail roads, fight wars, and immigrants coming here to live off the taxpayers of Ireland, then it appears your education was wasted on you

The refugees I've met in this country didn't come here to sponge of the state and suck you dry of your precious few pennies. They are given a crappy subsistence stipend and are not authorised to work but I can assure you that these lads are willing to work every damn hour god gives them if they were let.

Of course clueless ranters like you complain that they are here to scrounge off the government on benefits. Then when any of them get the go ahead to work and they toil 70 hours a week people like you bitch again that "they're stealin' owir jjaaaabs!!"

Gimme a break.

MorpheusKnight

Egginacup wrote: »

What the fuck are you talking about?

Read previous posts.

They are all written in English.

xhoundx

blatantrereg wrote: »

Pro: Dispossessed people get some sort of basic quality of life.

Jobs: The government could just as easily create low paying but useful jobs as give handouts. For example the grass in my estate is never cut unless residents pay someone to do it.

Health service: There are loads of doctors in Romania who work for wages menial workers would scoff at here. However our system is crap so we have too few doctors here who are overworked and overpaid rather than bringing in enough skilled workers.

Housing: How is there not housing? I thought there was plenty of empty houses and ghost estates now. Do you think that they need to be given accommodation in Dublin 4 or something?

Money: Improving throughput in processing asylum seekers and cutting out inflated legal teams for simple cases would save lots of money. As would increasing the number of doctors and not paying huge overtime.

Another complete load of waffle.

ebbsy

i LIKE CHICKEN.

xhoundx

Egginacup wrote: »

The refugees I've met in this country didn't come here to sponge of the state and suck you dry of your precious few pennies. They are given a crappy subsistence stipend and are not authorised to work but I can assure you that these lads are willing to work every damn hour god gives them if they were let.

Of course clueless ranters like you complain that they are here to scrounge off the government on benefits. Then when any of them get the go ahead to work and they toil 70 hours a week people like you bitch again that "they're stealin' owir jjaaaabs!!"

Gimme a break.

LOL I'm the one ranting?

Give up your bull**** "the refugees I met"

Sounds like the beginning of a bull**** EK "I met a man only last week" speech

MathDebater

Egginacup wrote: »

The refugees I've met in this country didn't come here to sponge of the state and suck you dry of your precious few pennies. They are given a crappy subsistence stipend and are not authorised to work but I can assure you that these lads are willing to work every damn hour god gives them if they were let.

Of course clueless ranters like you complain that they are here to scrounge off the government on benefits. Then when any of them get the go ahead to work and they toil 70 hours a week people like you bitch again that "they're stealin' owir jjaaaabs!!"

Gimme a break.

People who have been given refugee status have the same rights as Irish citizens when it comes to work, welfare, housing etc. You're conflating refugees with asylum seekers. Two entirely different groups. I think it's you that's the clueless ranter here.

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If the state provides housing for needy people it's called social housing.
Any benefit it provides to needy people is social welfare..

The use of such loose language gives rise to the notion that people can arrive and claim social welfare and be given a house. This is not the case.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So yes his points still stand, you can't compare countries that provide for asylum seekers or refugees and ones that don't.
If 19th century America had to provide the level of social care that we do in this country today, then they would not have been as welcoming as they had been.

You might care to look into attitudes to asylum seekers and illegal immigrants in the US today.

Irishtrajan wrote:

.............with 15,000 more people by the end of this year

Sport can provide the same excitement as making up worst case scenarios and is far healthier overall.

Gatling wrote:

Only if there in direct provision .

...which they are unless their claim is accepted. We have one of the lowest acceptance rates in Western Europe. Unless you have a problem with the granting of asylum full stop, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

MathDebater

We have one of the lowest acceptance rates in Western Europe.

Due to the fact that over 90% of the asylum claims receiced annually are 'unfounded'.

How many actually get deported?

We deported just just 210 people in 2013. Figures for last year will be available next month.

blatantrereg

Yes it's absurd. "Asylum seeker" should be a very temporary status. We have it as some sort of social group. Being an asylum seeker in Ireland is a viable lifestyle choice for people who work off the books or are outright criminals. On the other hand it is crap for respectable genuine refugees.

xhoundx

Nodin wrote: »

The use of such loose language gives rise to the notion that people can arrive and claim social welfare and be given a house. This is not the case.

Do you understand these boat people discard their documents before landing in Europe making it impossible for us to return them to their countries of origin?

Nodin wrote: »

You might care to look into attitudes to asylum seekers and illegal immigrants in the US today.

Waffle

Nodin wrote: »

Sport can provide the same excitement as making up worst case scenarios and is far healthier overall.

More waffle

Nodin wrote: »

...which they are unless their claim is accepted. We have one of the lowest acceptance rates in Western Europe. Unless you have a problem with the granting of asylum full stop, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

The cost of assessing who is genuine and who is not is a burden we could do without.
Unless you are involved in the processing of these people and stand to gain financially from it, be it through the legal processes involved or the housing of them