Ireland's asylum hotel monthly bill tops €3.54m

James Brown

biko wrote: »

Do-gooders don't give a **** about Irish homeless, there is just no money in it for them.
You must have political will to house and feed the homeless, but there is none.
There is however, plenty of political will to house and feed people that have never set foot in this country before.

Are do-gooders the ones making money renting out to the government and councils? And would these people making a killing have pals on the councils, in government? That's your homeless/asylum seeker industry not people advocating for housing, volunteers or even paid charity workers.
Or we could blame the do-gooders and keep voting in the same shams we have now.

Boggles

Blueshoe wrote: »

You are too far gone my well meaning friend.

Occupying reality doesn't make one well meaning.

But thanks anyway.

Blueshoe

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are do-gooders the ones making money renting out to the government and councils? And would these people making a killing have pals on the councils, in government? That's your homeless/asylum seeker industry not people advocating for housing, volunteers or even paid charity workers.
Or we could blame the do-gooders and keep voting in the same shams we have now.

Who would you vote in?

Blueshoe

Boggles wrote: »

Occupying reality doesn't make one well meaning.

But thanks anyway.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

jimmycrackcorm

Portsalon wrote: »

(a) they can't find locations for asylum hostels and two recent attempts to impose them on rural communities were stymied by arson attacks.

Let's face it, we are a racist country, not the 100 thousand welcomes if you're dark and from another part of the world .

I listened to the excuses on local radio when the hotel in mobile was struck by arson. The local counselor was on saying that medical facilities and schools wouldn't be able to cope.

And I thought at the time, if it was a job announcement about several hundred new positions in a new factory opening up there, there worldview be a peep out of him about the lack of medical resources and school places.

He even suggested they should be all placed in Dublin because that's where all the resources they need are

SchrodingersCat

Stephen15 wrote: »

Well someone mentioned that 99% of asylum seekers from the 3 countries with the highest numbers of applicants are rejected. That should really mean that those asylum seekers should be deported which doesn't happen.

Yes, I have seen the figure of 99%. This is the amount that I know that are rejected from Albania. In contrast, about 95% of Syrian applications get accepted as refugees. Overall, about 70% of asylum applications get rejected.
I assume that these figures include appeals (it would make sense to record them that way, but I would like to see a confirmation of this). Overall, just under 700 applicants got accepted as refugees last year.

According to the process that I have read, the Minister of Justice gets the final say after they fail their asylum application and appeals. The gardai can deport them then.

SchrodingersCat

enricoh wrote: »

Meh, if 40% of african adults are working the other 60% are living off the taxpayer. I dont care what % are on the dole, what % are on the disability allowance golden ticket,
who is on hap, housed by cluid the Council etc etc.
Same end result, 60% are contributing nothing and costing paddy a fortune.
We're staring down the barrel of no deal brexit n a global recession n there isnt a fiver left in the kitty.
Enough is enough, we've enough bums of our own.

The Irish government isn't letting a large proportion of them work, which results in the figure of 60%. Asylum applicants cannot work while they are being processed. This is contrary to what happens in most Europe. @kinvaro posted a link to a report that gives a good summary of this %60 figure.

Personally, I think we should follow the example of the rest of Europe and let them find jobs. They will contribute and pay taxes then. Deport them if necessary if they fail at the asylum application like before. It is just costing us money to keep them in hotels and not letting them work.

Boggles

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Personally, I think we should follow the example of the rest of Europe and let them find jobs. They will contribute and pay taxes then.

The report was from 2016-2017 before they were allowed work.

We now do, the law was changed recently, but it had to go to the Supreme Court.

Blueshoe

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

The Irish government isn't letting a large proportion of them work, which results in the figure of 60%. Asylum applicants cannot work while they are being processed. This is contrary to what happens in most Europe. @kinvaro posted a link to a report that gives a good summary of this %60 figure.

Personally, I think we should follow the example of the rest of Europe and let them find jobs. They will contribute and pay taxes then. Deport them if necessary if they fail at the asylum application like before. It is just costing us money to keep them in hotels and not letting them work.

You don't get a say. None of us do

SchrodingersCat

Boggles wrote: »

The report was from 2016-2017 before they were allowed work.

We now do, the law was changed recently, but it had to go to the Supreme Court.

Thanks for that correction. that must be since June 2018 when that law changed. So now Asylum applicants can work after 9 months of applying. If their applicant and appeals fails I guess they go through the same deportion process as before.

SchrodingersCat

Blueshoe wrote: »

You don't get a say. None of us do

Sorry, I don't understand?

enricoh

Blueshoe wrote: »

You are too far gone my well meaning friend. When Pascal comes round with the collection plate to cover the cost of the public spend bill I hope you are first to put your hand in the pocket.

Maybe he earns his living out of the migrant industry, plenty of jobs going, n plenty of quangos. Understandable if so.
Otherwise its peak delusion stuff!

Boggles

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Thanks for that correction. that must be since June 2018 when that law changed. So now Asylum applicants can work after 9 months of applying. If their applicant and appeals fails I guess they go through the same deportion process as before.

Apparently.

Personally I think it would be far more clever if they failed the asylum process to enter them into the immigration process.

Short term work Visas if they qualify for jobs we are short in, these can be reviewed and extended if necessary.

SchrodingersCat

Boggles wrote: »

Apparently.

Personally I think it would be far more clever if they failed the asylum process to enter them into the immigration process.

Short term work Visas if they qualify for jobs we are short in, these can be reviewed and extended if necessary.

True. I do know that they can apply for the Green Card for some of the higher skilled positions.

4068ac1elhodqr

Boggles wrote: »

Personally I think it would be far more clever if they failed the asylum process to enter them into the immigration process.

• If they 'failed the asylum process', it means they're not genuine asylum seekers.

• Which means they're (illegal) economic migrants seeking to take fiscal/welfare advantage at the expense of the taxpayer.

• Which means they've already failed on any 'proper migration process' from the getgo, on poor character for engaging in illegal activity.

Boggles wrote: »

Short term work Visas if they qualify for jobs we are short in, these can be reviewed and extended if necessary.

Like brain surgens, chemical engineers and python scripters? Sure.

There is a good reason Boris's new points sytem won't allow anyone in that can't earn an upper amount, he only wants/needs specifically highly skilled people.

Besides any temporary 'seasonal' agriculture work is nearing an end. And a pool of 1/2bn legal people is already available to select from.
The agro-industries will be automated before too long. There's farmers that can already milk their cows whilst having a cup of tea and watching the weather forecast.

There's only so many nailbars, powerwashing or taxis that be catered for, some of which could easily process undocumented (non-taxed) cash receipts and transactions.

4068ac1elhodqr

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

True. I do know that they can apply for the Green Card for some of the higher skilled positions.

Green card? This is not the 'DV-2020' lucky lottery.

Anyone with an ounce of sense that is able to fill a 'higher skilled' position would do so through the proper channels (they'd even get relocation expenses), before paying an illegal human trafficing gang thousands to sneak into the EU on a boat, then into the back of a lorry.

Boggles

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

• Which means they're (illegal) economic migrants seeking to take fiscal/welfare advantage at the expense of the taxpayer.

Yeah all Fordiners are just feckless and want welfare.

Racist dog whistling aside.

Did you miss the part where I said they get put to work on short terms visas?

There is a good reason Boris's new points sytem won't allow anyone in that can't earn an upper amount, he only wants/needs specifically highly skilled people.

Have you seen a publish paper on his new system?

Any way Bojo wants to give half a million illegals an amnesty, the thought he only needs or wants specifically highly skilled people is a load of bollix, the home office stated as much in a paper last December.

Not a popular one within a certain cohort over there though.

The believe anything as long as it's written on a bus sort.

SchrodingersCat

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

Green card? This is not the 'DV-2020' lucky lottery.

Anyone with an ounce of sense that is able to fill a 'higher skilled' position would do so through the proper channels (they'd even get relocation expenses), before paying an illegal human trafficing gang thousands to sneak into the EU on a boat, then into the back of a lorry.

Yes, the Irish Green Card. The DV card is American. The details of the green card are here: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/migrant_workers/employment_permits/green_card_permits.html

Stephen15

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Yes, I have seen the figure of 99%. This is the amount that I know that are rejected from Albania. In contrast, about 95% of Syrian applications get accepted as refugees. Overall, about 70% of asylum applications get rejected.
I assume that these figures include appeals (it would make sense to record them that way, but I would like to see a confirmation of this). Overall, just under 700 applicants got accepted as refugees last year.

According to the process that I have read, the Minister of Justice gets the final say after they fail their asylum application and appeals. The gardai can deport them then.

I doubt 70% of asylum applicants are deported which really should be the case in my opinion. I don't think asylum applicants should have the right to appeal if they're claims are found false and instead should be deported. Yes in theory they can be deported but that doesn't mean it happens often enough.

James Brown

Blueshoe wrote: »

Who would you vote in?

Pretty much anybody except FF/FG. I'd hopes for the SD's but I'm a loose cannon vote wise these days.
If you're going to try fly the 'best of a bad lot' or 'the others are worse', you'd be wrong.

mfceiling

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Personally, I think we should follow the example of the rest of Europe and let them find jobs. They will contribute and pay taxes then. Deport them if necessary if they fail at the asylum application like before. It is just costing us money to keep them in hotels and not letting them work.

Not having a go but what jobs?

There's very few unskilled jobs for people with no grasp of English. A lot of these migrants could find themselves being hugely exploited by unscrupulous employers in a job that offers no security and minimum wage.

I keep hearing the "let them work" argument. How many jobs have we currently for someone who speaks little to no English?

Boggles

mfceiling wrote: »

Not having a go but what jobs?

There's very few unskilled jobs for people with no grasp of English. A lot of these migrants could find themselves being hugely exploited by unscrupulous employers in a job that offers no security and minimum wage.

I keep hearing the "let them work" argument. How many jobs have we currently for someone who speaks little to no English?

Why is a decent grasp of English so important for a low skilled job?

Polish guy up the road from me, very few words, he is a cracking panel beater (skilled job), hasn't held him back.

Re exploitation, don't let it happen, we have employment laws, enforce them.

mvl

Boggles wrote: »

Why is a decent grasp of English so important for a low skilled job?

Polish guy up the road from me, very few words, he is a cracking panel beater (skilled job), hasn't held him back.

Re exploitation, don't let it happen, we have employment laws, enforce them.

wha ?

you'd think they'd need to describe what they can do in English, especially if they've no papers - or would you think the state should provide translators during job interviews for them ?

- that polish guy may have a network of family or friends that helped him get the jobs, rather than relying on welfare ...

SchrodingersCat

mvl wrote: »

wha ?

you'd think they'd need to describe what they can do in English, especially if they've no papers - or would you think the state should provide translators during job interviews for them ?

- that polish guy may have a network of family or friends that helped him get the jobs, rather than relying on welfare ...

Another nationality may have family or friends that helped them get the jobs too. They don't strictly have to be Polish.

4068ac1elhodqr

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah all Fordiners are just feckless and want welfare.

I strongly disagree with your very racist sentiment.

'Any' 'fordiners' as you call them, (from anywhere) that are skilled, well-meaning and (importantly) here legally through proper procedure or due process, are all most welcome indeed.

However, illegal economic migrants, often illterate and unskilled who are seeking to take advantage must be held accountable. Since they can't work the simply 'have' to recieve taxpayers welfare, that is the default option.

On the other hand if you were to offer them 'any type' of work visa whatsoever (simply on the premesis of showing up), you would have a can-o-worms mass exodus of illegal economic migrants landing on the shores, and jumping out of lorries (or similar) to take their chances. Driving down wages and pushing up rents. Those (most) that don't or won't find work, will be out of DP entering the black market of slave-like labour and become taken advantage of.

Galwayguy35

Boggles wrote: »

Why is a decent grasp of English so important for a low skilled job?

Polish guy up the road from me, very few words, he is a cracking panel beater (skilled job), hasn't held him back.

Re exploitation, don't let it happen, we have employment laws, enforce them.

It's very important in a low skilled job as you call it.

I worked with people that had little or no english especially back in 2004 when the EE first arrived and it was impossible trying to explain to new people how to do the job when they hadn't a clue what we were saying.

Boggles

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

I strongly disagree with your very racist sentiment.

'Any' 'fordiners' as you call them, (from anywhere) that are skilled, well-meaning and (importantly) here legally through proper procedure or due process, are all most welcome indeed.

However, illegal economic migrants, often illterate and unskilled who are seeking to take advantage must be held accountable. Since they can't work the simply 'have' to recieve taxpayers welfare, that is the default option.

On the other hand if you were to offer them 'any type' of work visa whatsoever (simply on the premesis of showing up), you would have a can-o-worms mass exodus of illegal economic migrants landing on the shores, and jumping out of lorries (or similar) to take their chances. Driving down wages and pushing up rents. Those (most) that don't or won't find work, will be out of DP entering the black market of slave-like labour and become taken advantage of.

The exact same nonsense was peddled when the Eastern Europeans joined us.

We have just moved on to Africans now.

It's boring, you need a new shtick.

Boggles

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's very important in a low skilled job as you call it.

I worked with people that had little or no english especially back in 2004 when the EE first arrived and it was impossible trying to explain to new people how to do the job when they hadn't a clue what we were saying.

Doing what exactly?

Galwayguy35

Boggles wrote: »

Doing what exactly?

Factory and warehouse work

mfceiling

Boggles wrote: »

Why is a decent grasp of English so important for a low skilled job?

I'll tell you how. The first thing you need in construction is a safe pass card. Some guys are doing this course who do not speak a single word of english. The time before last when I did mine there were 3 guys, and one of them spoke a small bit of english. The guy taking the course asked him to translate for the other 2. He went through the entire course and the lad never uttered a word to the other 2. He did help them to answer the questions for the final "exam" part. That's 2 guys arriving on site with no english....None. Is that safe?

I was doing a fit out in East point business park and the labourer was a Lithuanian guy with no english. He was knocking down old stud walls. There was one wall with live services that was to be left untouched. He was told not to touch the wall and 2 minutes later he demolished the wall, taking out a heap of phone lines, the power to the floor and it fell on a lad from Balbriggan twisting his knee and putting him out of work for 6 weeks.

If you don't think a basic grasp of english is needed for a low skilled job in an english speaking company then I hold no hope I'm afraid!!