Ireland's asylum hotel monthly bill tops €3.54m

nkl12xtw5goz70

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

You wrote that report is being disingenuous when it says that migrants cause a countries economy to strengthen. You said that the report doesnt take prospering economies into account when it does. That is an unfair analysis.

I don't see anything in the study about prospering economies. Can you indicate where the authors talk about that?

The report differentiates between migrants and asylum seekers.

"The effects of a shock on the net flow of migrants are strong ... [but] ... the corresponding effects of a shock on the flow of asylum seekers are less clear."

I think we would all acknowledge that an influx of migrants, especially educated workers, can benefit an economy.

But as the report itself acknowledges, the impact of an influx of asylum seekers is "less clear." There is no clear evidence that they benefit an economy.

McHardcore

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

You are confusing/brushing over the matter by not referring to the area of 'unskilled' which is the only sector that will have a preference for females over males. Ttypically the care industry, admin/office support etc. Regular male roles such as warehousing and dumb manual grunt tasks are much, much easier to automate as the require little people interaction or fidelity of emotional inteligence. You are confusing/brushing over the matter by tring to draw away from the isuse that illegal econominc/welfare migration.

SchrodingersCat

Permabear II wrote: »

I don't see anything in the study about prospering economies. Can you indicate where the authors talk about that?

Yes. You made the argument that "This is quite disingenuous, suggesting that migrants cause a country's economy to strengthen....These correlations strongly suggest that asylum seekers are attracted to a country with good economic prospects, as opposed to an influx of asylum seekers somehow creating economic growth."

From the report:

We consider that VAR modelling is an appropriate tool for analyzing the macroeconomic effects of migration shocks because it addresses reverse causality bias, which is present in this case because economic situations are both affected by immigration and likely to influence decisions to migrate.

Permabear II wrote: »

The report differentiates between migrants and asylum seekers. ...But as the report itself acknowledges, the impact of an influx of asylum seekers is "less clear." There is no clear evidence that they benefit an economy.

It is not fair to equate "Less clear" with "no clear evidence". If you want a fair summary of the report findings on asylum seekers, take their own line:

Asylum seekers also benefit economies, but their effects take longer to transpire — from three to seven years — and the boon is less obvious. Unlike migrants, people seeking refuge often face restrictions on working, and must move to another country if their applications for permanent residency are denied.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

hope you don't put diesel in a petrol car. One fuel will get you places, the other may wreck your engine.

You mean petrol in a diesel car? That is the worst combination that will wreck your engine. You need to respond to this post btw.

Kivaro

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

With regards to your later point, the majority of asylum applicants in Ireland are rejected and deported. The breakdown of the figures are here. We gave refugee status to 698 of applicants last year in total, which I assume includes those after appeal.

Since you are stating this as a fact, could you please provide the corroborating evidence that the majority of the rejected asylum applicants in Ireland are deported.

SchrodingersCat

Kivaro wrote: »

Since you are stating this as a fact, could you please provide the corroborating evidence that the majority of the rejected asylum applicants in Ireland are deported.

Where is your evidence for your earlier statement that African adults in Ireland have no need work due to the very generous welfare state that exists in this country? This is all very one sided here.

SchrodingersCat

There is an intersting line from the Nature article and report here:

Our results suggest that the alleged migrant crisis currently experienced by Europe is not likely to provoke an economic crisis but might rather be an economic opportunity. We do not deny that large flows of asylum seekers into Europe pose many political challenges both within host countries and with respect to the European coordination of national policies. However, these political challenges may be more easily addressed if the cliché that international migration is associated with economic “burden” can be dispelled. In particular, we believe that the allocation mechanism for asylum seekers should be more dependent on political and diplomatic considerations than on economic concerns.

joseywhales

mvl wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

They should be allowed to and encouraged to seek work immediately while they are in process. It's what 99% of them want and it's obviously more cost effective.

But do you know what type of jobs/facilities are available where they are hosted ?

For example, if they bring them in lets say places like Laois, it might end up like Cllr Brendan Phelan is saying "“There’s nothing in Rathdowney for them. There will be young fellas walking up and down the street, wondering where have they been landed”"

Aside:I had to take a moment to realise we are talking about an asylum rate of .000014% population/year.


The location of a direct provision centre is now currently meaningless because the people in process are not allowed to work anyway but absolutely they should be moved to give them access to jobs.

I think that when an asylum seeker comes, they should be afforded everything you would afford a teenager to get their first job, a bus pass, temporary shelter and food until they can find their own, access to the internet and a phone.

There is probably a lot more too(access to medical and schools etc), I have no training in integrating refugees but there are people who do, we should fund that because the benefit to integrating as early as possible is worthwhile.

SchrodingersCat

joseywhales wrote: »

Aside:I had to take a moment to realise we are talking about an asylum rate of .000014% population/year.


The location of a direct provision centre is now currently meaningless because the people in process are not allowed to work anyway but absolutely they should be moved to give them access to jobs.

I think that when an asylum seeker comes, they should be afforded everything you would afford a teenager to get their first job, a bus pass, temporary shelter and food until they can find their own, access to the internet and a phone.

There is probably a lot more too(access to medical and schools etc), I have no training in integrating refugees but there are people who do, we should fund that because the benefit to integrating as early as possible is worthwhile.

Just to add to that, the OECD reported that there will be “virtually no impact” from additional refugees on the workforce population in Ireland. Despite public fears that an influx of migrants could impact the labour market of host countries, the report contends that this rise in numbers will be “small and concentrated on the working-age population” and increase by no more than 0.4 per cent by December 2020.

enricoh

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Just to add to that, the OECD reported that there will be “virtually no impact” from additional refugees on the workforce population in Ireland. Despite public fears that an influx of migrants could impact the labour market of host countries, the report contends that this rise in numbers will be “small and concentrated on the working-age population” and increase by no more than 0.4 per cent by December 2020.

Will there be virtually no impact on the numbers of foreigners of housing waiting lists?!! Whats dublin now - 1 in 3 foreign born.

Diceicle

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Just to add to that, the OECD reported that there will be “virtually no impact” from additional refugees on the workforce population in Ireland. Despite public fears that an influx of migrants could impact the labour market of host countries, the report contends that this rise in numbers will be “small and concentrated on the working-age population” and increase by no more than 0.4 per cent by December 2020.

Taking that as read, we should bear in mind that we are looking at the labour force as a whole. So we are essentially saying that Refugees will not has any material impact on Software Developers, Engineers and Accountants - well, yeah. No s**t?
They will however have an impact on those already in our country who exist on the lower end of the economic ladder.

4068ac1elhodqr

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

There is an intersting line from the Nature article and report here:

It's not really interesting. And again merges legal migration with asylum cases over 30ys (not the recent '15 surges).

Even looking only at asylum cases (as someone mentioned) it may be as low as .000014% population/year, thus has no influnce on overall GDP, but shows actual pressure on essential public services.
However if you do want to take a look at effects on GDP. That grows naturally year on year regardless. But take a look at peak flows to Germany of 2015. That year, Germany has it's worst growth year in 8yrs after inviting in circa 1m to settle.

Germany only recovered in late 2017, and this quater is looking once again at negative growth, due to the effects of another mass migration incident (brexit). If Italy should leave also, (due to again mass illegal migration) the european project is somewhat screwed.

Housing pressure and massive yearly % increases, all clearly indicate a current and future burden. Over in the UK the NHS sets aside a couple of £bn per annum, just to deal with (non-eu) 'health tourism'.
Then there is the black (untaxed cash wages) market, and explotation from thousands of illegal undocumented, such as recent the illegal taxi licence fiasco (coupled with sham marriges), and also, the rubber stamping of 1,000 or so visas - through bribery of a single official.

4068ac1elhodqr

Diceicle wrote: »

They will however have an impact on those already in our country who exist on the lower end of the economic ladder.

Agree, the uk has larger flows and data to look at. It shows only skilled Chinese and Indians (fluent and usually Uni educated with work permits) are the only two groups that earn just over the regular natives.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48919813

All other enthicities earn less per hour on average (indication of economic value), than the default white british group.

nkl12xtw5goz70

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

We consider that VAR modelling is an appropriate tool for analyzing the macroeconomic effects of migration shocks because it addresses reverse causality bias, which is present in this case because economic situations are both affected by immigration and likely to influence decisions to migrate.

I do not for one second believe that this model can isolate the macroeconomic effects of a few thousand asylum seekers per year entering the country, especially over a period when the Irish macroeconomy was affected by numerous circumstances—including the biggest boom in the country's history, a financial crisis, and a recession. By far the biggest "migration shock" over the last decade was the 300,000+ who emigrated during the downturn.

It is not fair to equate "Less clear" with "no clear evidence". If you want a fair summary of the report findings on asylum seekers, take their own line:

Asylum seekers also benefit economies, but their effects take longer to transpire — from three to seven years — and the boon is less obvious.

"Less clear," "effects take longer to transpire," "boon is less obvious" — it's really grasping at straws to claim that asylum seekers have some net benefit to the Irish economy that is not more likely due to a multitude of other factors.

Kivaro

Callan Delightful Sociology wrote: »

"Less clear," "effects take longer to transpire," "boon is less obvious" — it's really grasping at straws to claim that asylum seekers have some net benefit to the Irish economy that is not more likely due to a multitude of other factors.

The naivety of some posters e.g. those with the claim above, is probably due to the fact that they have not endured a "real" working life yet i.e. getting up at crazy hours in order to commute to a back-breaking/challenging job and then at the end of the week trying to figure out what doesn't get paid between the mortgage, insurance, creche cost etc.

They would have a different perspective when they realise that 40% to 50% (and more) that is deducted from that weekly wage in taxes is now used to house, feed, provide healthcare, and also provide social welfare services for the rest of their lives to those asylum seekers and economic migrants who do not want to work after arriving in Ireland.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Kivaro wrote: »

They would have a different perspective when they realise that 40% to 50% (and more) that is deducted from that weekly wage in taxes is now used to house, feed, provide healthcare, and also provide social welfare services for the rest of their lives to those asylum seekers and economic migrants who do not want to work after arriving in Ireland.

Agreed. Spending on direct provision is set to reach €120 million this year. Plus you have all the free legal aid costs for their often lengthy legal proceedings. The infamous spoofer Pamela Izbekhai racked up a legal bill of over €1 million all by herself before she was finally deported.

It's beyond naive to believe that asylum seekers will eventually pay all those millions back to the state, and then some.

Patrick2010

Callan Delightful Sociology wrote: »

Agreed. Spending on direct provision is set to reach €120 million this year. Plus you have all the free legal aid costs for their often lengthy legal proceedings. The infamous spoofer Pamela Izbekhai racked up a legal bill of over €1 million all by herself before she was finally deported.

It's beyond naive to believe that asylum seekers will eventually pay all those millions back to the state, and then some.

Heres one womens great idea, give everyone a home...


Childrens play areas and cooking facilities should not be abnormal in anyones life. Abolish Direct provision & give everyone a home with their own kitchen and play areas

https://twitter.com/Bernieadufe/status/1163517955616989184

4068ac1elhodqr

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Heres one womens great idea, give everyone a home...

Childrens play areas and cooking facilities should not be abnormal in anyones life. Abolish Direct provision & give everyone a home with their own kitchen and play areas

https://twitter.com/Bernieadufe/status/1163517955616989184

Crazy stuff, all while young workers resort to spending about half of their net (after tax) income, on co-living (21st century bedsits, smaller than a parking space), with one kitchen per 42 habitants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/exciting-co-living-scheme-slated-as-21st-century-bedsits-1.3898763
Property developers muct be rubbing their hands.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Heres one womens great idea, give everyone a home...

I was wondering when the magic money tree would make an appearance.

SchrodingersCat

enricoh wrote: »

Will there be virtually no impact on the numbers of foreigners of housing waiting lists?!! Whats dublin now - 1 in 3 foreign born.

if you want to include foreign born in this debate, you will be including a massive part of the population, including Irish citizens with Irish parents. Putting the issues with discriminating foreign borns from housing waiting lists aside, we have to reduce the scope of the debate here and not include these too.

Diceicle wrote: »

Taking that as read, we should bear in mind that we are looking at the labour force as a whole. So we are essentially saying that Refugees will not has any material impact on Software Developers, Engineers and Accountants - well, yeah. No s**t?

Yes, the OECD figures given are for the labor force as a whole. This includes software developers, engineers, accountants, laborers, factory workers etc.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

It's not really interesting. And again merges legal migration with asylum cases over 30ys (not the recent '15 surges).

That is incorrect. The study does not mix these up.
The researchers looked separately at the effects of migrants — who are legally allowed to settle in a country — and asylum seekers who reside temporarily in a nation while their applications for refugee status are processed.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

But take a look at peak flows to Germany of 2015. That year, Germany has it's worst growth year in 8yrs after inviting in circa 1m to settle.
Germany only recovered in late 2017

You are assuming that because the two figures are correlated together, that one effects the other. This is wrong.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

All other enthicities earn less per hour on average (indication of economic value), than the default white british group.

I dont believe it is that simple. Because an ethnicity is paid less doesnt necessarily mean that they are of lower value. To quote the report linked to earlier by Kinvaro:
This would suggest that the disadvantages experienced by Africans in the Irish labour market appear to be due to a combination of restrictive policies the part of the state and discriminatory practices on the part of employers.

Permabear II wrote: »

I do not for one second believe that this model can isolate the macroeconomic effects of a few thousand asylum seekers per year entering the country, especially over a period when the Irish macroeconomy was affected by numerous circumstances—including the biggest boom in the country's history, a financial crisis, and a recession. By far the biggest "migration shock" over the last decade was the 300,000+ who emigrated during the downturn.

If you feel that the study is bogus, fair enough. If you want to prove its bogus, feel free to respond with reputable sources showing otherwise. Bear in mind that the study above was peer reviewed and published in a journal with an impact factor of 12, which puts it in the top 2% of journals.

Diceicle

What happened to the reforms of the asylum system the Aodhan O'Riordan proposed? Have they just been moth-balled?

lola85

Diceicle wrote: »

What happened to the reforms of the asylum system the Aodhan O'Riordan proposed? Have they just been moth-balled?

Moth-balled like him.

Both positives.

4068ac1elhodqr

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

if you want to include foreign born in this debate, you will be including a massive part of the population, including Irish citizens with Irish parents. Putting the issues with discriminating foreign borns from housing waiting lists aside, we have to reduce the scope of the debate here and not include these too.

This has an air of 'try hard' about it, even ignorance of non-eu demand for housing in Dublin.

SOME 21% OF new families presenting as homeless in Dublin last year were non-EU citizens according to a new report. Note. Someone with Irish parents has rights to an Irish passport.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

That is incorrect. The study does not mix these up.
The researchers looked separately at the effects of migrants — who are legally allowed to settle in a country...

Problem is that study ignores anything form 2015 onwards. After which the term 'mass' migration came into effect, the same year the Germany economy tanked, and brexitland decided it wanted out.
Essentially the study is bogus in recent context.

How very convenient only to look at 1985 to 2015, when it was a 'natural' and very small compared to current times, and back then consisted mainly from the break-up of Yugoslavia. Guess it suits an agenda better that way to exclude the last 5yrs.

Your also assuming that there was zero correlation of having 1m+ show up in Germany, that the GDP hit a 8yr low 2015. This is wrong.

Blueshoe

joseywhales wrote: »

Aside:I had to take a moment to realise we are talking about an asylum rate of .000014% population/year.


The location of a direct provision centre is now currently meaningless because the people in process are not allowed to work anyway but absolutely they should be moved to give them access to jobs.

I think that when an asylum seeker comes, they should be afforded everything you would afford a teenager to get their first job, a bus pass, temporary shelter and food until they can find their own, access to the internet and a phone.

There is probably a lot more too(access to medical and schools etc), I have no training in integrating refugees but there are people who do, we should fund that because the benefit to integrating as early as possible is worthwhile.

So you want to send out the message that all people need to do is apply and they are in. Most are economic migrants who want to work but we don't particularly need low skill workers.

Diceicle

lola85 wrote: »

Moth-balled like him.

Both positives.

He's insufferable but tbf (and I'm going from memory here) but the end result of the reforms were less appeals and a final decision in a quicker timeframe - unlike the current situation where we deport ~15-20% of failed applicants.

SchrodingersCat

Diceicle wrote: »

He's insufferable but tbf (and I'm going from memory here) but the end result of the reforms were less appeals and a final decision in a quicker timeframe - unlike the current situation where we deport ~15-20% of failed applicants.

Can you give us a source for this figure? I am interested in trying to get as much on this subject as I can.

mvl

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

This has an air of 'try hard' about it, even ignorance of non-eu demand for housing in Dublin.

SOME 21% OF new families presenting as homeless in Dublin last year were non-EU citizens according to a new report. Note. Someone with Irish parents has rights to an Irish passport.



Problem is that study ignores anything form 2015 onwards. After which the term 'mass' migration came into effect, the same year the Germany economy tanked, and brexitland decided it wanted out.
Essentially the study is bogus in recent context.

How very convenient only to look at 1985 to 2015, when it was a 'natural' and very small compared to current times, and back then consisted mainly from the break-up of Yugoslavia. Guess it suits an agenda better that way to exclude the last 5yrs.

Your also assuming that there was zero correlation of having 1m+ show up in Germany, that the GDP hit a 8yr low 2015. This is wrong.

Some costs for 2015 are known (linked source):
[ For the countries most affected by the recent refugee surge,the costscan thus be quite high. For example, Germany,which received as many as 900000 asylum seekers in 2015(according to the latest estimates),spent €16 billion (0.5% of GDP)on its migrants in that year. Sweden,which received 163000 asylum seekers in 2015(the highest per capita ratio ever registered in the OECD at 1.6% of total population), spent €6 billion (1.35% of GDP). ]


In same document there is a table showing estimated average annual costs per refugees in Sweden - guess what: after 7 years, they would still costs the swedish government few thousands a year.
Do we have anywhere this type of information for Ireland though ?
I am sure would be good info to have before any election ...

Diceicle

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Can you give us a source for this figure? I am interested in trying to get as much on this subject as I can.

I'll have a look and post something later. iirc it was quoted by a Dept official in an oireachtas video.
Edit: will look for the video when I get to the office. But for now theres this article re: deportation figures: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/less-than-a-fifth-of-deportation-orders-carried-out-1.3680876

SchrodingersCat

Diceicle wrote: »

I'll have a look and post something later. iirc it was quoted by a Dept official in an oireachtas video.
Edit: will look for the video when I get to the office. But for now theres this article re: deportation figures: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/less-than-a-fifth-of-deportation-orders-carried-out-1.3680876

Thanks, this is a good article, there are some very interesting figures here.
It says "9,197 deportation orders have been made since 2011 while only one in five of those who received these orders – 1,857 people – have been deported from Ireland. Some 5,504 people facing deportation have been granted permission to remain following a re-examination of their case since 2011. Another 2,245 returned home voluntarily."

So if we remove those 5504 granted permission after re-examination from the original number of 9197, we have 3693. If we remove the 2,245 that returned home voluntarily since 2011 we have 1448 that were given deportation orders that should have been carried out. What confuses me is that 1,857 were deported? That would suggest that we deported more than we should have?

Il have to look over these figures more when I get the chance, at the moment I cant make sense of them. I was hoping that I would be left with the number of thoese that were remaining illegally after receiving deportation orders since 2011.

Diceicle

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Thanks, this is a good article, there are some very interesting figures here.
It says "9,197 deportation orders have been made since 2011 while only one in five of those who received these orders – 1,857 people – have been deported from Ireland. Some 5,504 people facing deportation have been granted permission to remain following a re-examination of their case since 2011. Another 2,245 returned home voluntarily."

So if we remove those 5504 granted permission after re-examination from the original number of 9197, we have 3693. If we remove the 2,245 that returned home voluntarily since 2011 we have 1448 that were given deportation orders that should have been carried out. What confuses me is that 1,857 were deported? That would suggest that we deported more than we should have?

Il have to look over these figures more when I get the chance, at the moment I cant make sense of them. I was hoping that I would be left with the number of thoese that were remaining illegally after receiving deportation orders since 2011.

Having trouble finding the video. I could be misremembering and getting confused with the article - though I think the channel it was on was shut down by YouTube

SchrodingersCat

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

enricoh wrote: »

Will there be virtually no impact on the numbers of foreigners of housing waiting lists?!! Whats dublin now - 1 in 3 foreign born.

if you want to include foreign born in this debate, you will be including a massive part of the population, including Irish citizens with Irish parents. Putting the issues with discriminating foreign borns from housing waiting lists aside, we have to reduce the scope of the debate here and not include these too.

This has an air of 'try hard' about it, even ignorance of non-eu demand for housing in Dublin.

I am genuinely surprised that people in Ireland hold that view against foreign born: the number of Irish citizens born this way is huge. :eek:

To give an example, many Irish parents went to the UK to work during the recession of the 80's. They had kids and came home to raise them in Ireland. To include their children with asylum seekers and disallow them services such as housing lists sounds a bit mad to me.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

Problem is that study ignores anything form 2015 onwards. After which the term 'mass' migration came into effect, the same year the Germany economy tanked, and brexitland decided it wanted out.
Essentially the study is bogus in recent context.

How very convenient only to look at 1985 to 2015, when it was a 'natural' and very small compared to current times, and back then consisted mainly from the break-up of Yugoslavia.

Guess it suits an agenda better that way to exclude the last 5yrs.

I assume you mean just over three and a half years: It includes data from 2015, the year that you suggest all these big changes happened.
If you do a google trend search for the term "mass migration", it was used pretty much consistently before 2015. It did not come into effect in 2015.
The report I linked to was published in 2017 and I assume submitted the year before in 2016. It would be difficult for them to have an agenda by not including data from 2016 onwards since this data didnt exist yet.
Lastly, their conclusion is that migrants and asylum seekers benefit an economy: A relatively larger number of these shouldn't reverse this.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

But take a look at peak flows to Germany of 2015. That year, Germany has it's worst growth year in 8yrs after inviting in circa 1m to settle.

You are assuming that because the two figures are correlated together, that one effects the other. This is wrong.

Your also assuming that there was zero correlation of having 1m+ show up in Germany, that the GDP hit a 8yr low 2015. This is wrong.

You are making a common mistake in statistics. Because two figures move in relation to each other doesn't necessarily mean that they effect each other another.

mvl wrote: »

Some costs for 2015 are known (linked source):
[ For the countries most affected by the recent refugee surge,the costscan thus be quite high. For example, Germany,which received as many as 900000 asylum seekers in 2015(according to the latest estimates),spent €16 billion (0.5% of GDP)on its migrants in that year. Sweden,which received 163000 asylum seekers in 2015(the highest per capita ratio ever registered in the OECD at 1.6% of total population), spent €6 billion (1.35% of GDP). ]In same document there is a table showing estimated average annual costs per refugees in Sweden - guess what: after 7 years, they would still costs the swedish government few thousands a year.

Thanks for posting a link to that report. I had a quick look through it there are some figures that I am interested in. The year that you are referencing, 2015, was included in the study here that came to the conclusion that there is a net benefit to the economy by integrating asylum seekers.

Yes, the costs of integrating asylum seekers can be high, but the argument being made is that this is returned back into the economy. As said in the report public spending induced by asylum seekers is more than compensated for by an increase in tax revenues net of transfers. As asylum seekers become permanent residents, their macroeconomic impacts become positive.

Ive copied the graph that you referenced


We can see how the costs reduce over time as they gets integrated into society. This fits into the report that says Asylum seekers also benefit economies, but their effects take longer to transpire — from three to seven years — and the boon is less obvious. Unlike migrants, people seeking refuge often face restrictions on working, and must move to another country if their applications for permanent residency are denied.