oughterard people - see OP for Mod warning 29/09/19

alastair

weldoninhio wrote: »

"Eric's mother Leena Mei Mei Xue, was 19 when she arrived in Ireland illegally in 2006." - My mistake she was just a plain old illegal alien.

So. Not a refused asylum seeker. As already stated. You made that fairy tale up.

Ruraldweller56

alastair wrote: »

Well it doesn’t. Because he wasn’t issued with a deportation order, was he? All refused asylum seekers are, and your pal was most likely working a student visa, as most illegal Asian workers here are. It allows legitimate entry here which isn’t particularly under the radar.

No. He wasn't here as a student at all. He was here when he wasn't supposed to have been, and working illegally under the radar to support himself.

Your debate has dropped to the level of assumption at this stage.

Point stands.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Nope - they’re served with deportation orders. They leave under those orders.

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

No. He wasn't here as a student at all. He was here when he wasn't supposed to have been, and working illegally under the radar to support himself.

Your debate has dropped to the level of assumption at this stage.

Point stands.

The point doesn’t stand. He hadn’t been served with a deportation order, had he? Did you ask your pal what documentation he entered the country under? How are you so sure it wasn’t a study visa?

jmayo

SporadicMan wrote: »

Jesus, is there anywhere on our small island that is free from these centres nowadays?

Oh I can think of a good few places.

alastair wrote: »

They leave the state or are deported.

You are a funny guy/gal.

2ndcoming wrote: »

They're appealing to not be deported back to the place they fled, not because they love direct provision so much.

I don't know if anyone else noticed your terminology ?

You are trying to spin it that even though they were found to have no case to warrent them getting asylum, they all fled from somewhere terrible.

This is the problem with those backing refugees/asylum seekers/economic migrants.
They immediately assume that they all deserve to stay because they have all fled certain death.
Talk about gullible.

Now you might claim I am the opposite.
But maybe it is because I know that there are more bogus ones than deserving ones.

italodisco

Simple solution, throw out 250 Cultchies from Dublin and take in this 250 Asylum Seekers.

Problem Solved.

alastair

jmayo wrote: »

You are a funny guy/gal.

Not at all. It’s simply the fact of the matter. If you’ve evidence to the contrary, spit it out.

Ruraldweller56

alastair wrote: »

The point doesn’t stand. He hadn’t been served with a deportation order, had he?

It absolutely stands. Deportation order in this case is 100% immaterial. You wanted to know how people can stay here and make a living even when they're legally not allowed to be here. Your use of 'deportation order' is more of your disingenuous BS. Here's your post incase you've forgotten:

alastair wrote: »

Yes. That’s what happens. You think there’s a bunch of refused asylum seekers living underground, with no means of employment or support, that nobody notices?

Tell you what, explain to me for the purposes of what you're trying to get across why a deportation order would make any difference? Neither one should be here, least of all working and in both cases making a living.

Tbh I'm not expecting anything other than some inane 'but a deportation order' response

ToBeFrank123

italodisco wrote: »

Simple solution, throw out 250 Cultchies from Dublin and take in this 250 Asylum Seekers.

Problem Solved.

I could be wrong but I think 250 "culchies" contribute far more to Dublin than 250 Asylum Seekers living on €21 a week.

machaseh

Why don't we put the lot of em in Dingle or some other godforsaken town and teach them all to speak Irish, maybe then we can save that dying language of yours as these people generally get 10+ kids per family.

alastair

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

It absolutely stands. Deportation order in this case is 100% immaterial. You wanted to know how people can stay here and make a living even when they're legally not allowed to be here. Your use of 'deportation order' is more of your disingenuous BS. Here's your post incase you've forgotten:



Tell you what, explain to me for the purposes of what you're trying to get across why a deportation order would make any difference? Neither one should be here, least of all working and in both cases making a living.

Tbh I'm not expecting anything other than some inane 'but a deportation order' response

I’m well aware of the undocumented and the routes they apply into the workplace here. But they are not refused asylum seekers. A third of undocumented here actually pay tax, and the vast majority come from nations that don’t register as asylum seeker home countries. They’re predominantly Filipinos, Chinese and Brazilians. Any refused asylum seeker has a bureaucratic target on their back - your typical undocumented worker is an over-stayer who is ignored by bureaucracy - which of these two are likely to draw hassle on their employer?

Boggles

alastair wrote: »

I’m well aware of the undocumented and the routes they apply into the workplace here. But they are not refused asylum seekers. A third of undocumented here actually pay tax, and the vast majority come from nations that don’t register as asylum seeker home countries. They’re predominantly Filipinos, Chinese and Brazilians. Any refused asylum seeker has a bureaucratic target on their back - your typical undocumented worker is an over-stayer who is ignored by bureaucracy - which of these two are likely to draw hassle on their employer?

Exactly.

Something people fail to realize.

The "easiest" way to enter Ireland or a lot of countries in fact, is to arrive legally and then overstay.

The "hardest" way is by the asylum process.

ToBeFrank123

machaseh wrote: »

Why don't we put the lot of em in Dingle or some other godforsaken town and teach them all to speak Irish, maybe then we can save that dying language of yours as these people generally get 10+ kids per family.

Where are you from?

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly.

Something people fail to realize.

The "easiest" way to enter Ireland or a lot of countries in fact, is to arrive legally and then overstay.

The "hardest" way is by the asylum process.

A lot of bogus refugees rocked up here on planes and through ports.

Very few Syrian escapees of war for example landed at their own cost here.

Most genuine refugees would find it very difficult to make it to Ireland. Generally they have no documentation, passports, money, etc. The Syrians who made it here were helped, rightly, to get here. The bogus refugees came here with no help. They are here for economic reasons.

alastair

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

A lot of bogus refugees rocked up here on planes and through ports.

Very few Syrian escapees of war for example landed at their own cost here.

Most genuine refugees would find it very difficult to make it to Ireland. Generally they have no documentation, passports, money, etc.

Every legitimate asylum seeker rocked up here on a plane or through ports. There isn’t really any alternative way to get in.

The 30% of asylum seekers who gain protection are not bogus, and many of the rejected applicants have valid cases that don’t meet the criteria for protection. See the piece in today’s IT. The notion that only ‘bogus’ claimants manage to make it to Ireland is, eh, bogus.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

A lot of bogus refugees rocked up here on planes and through ports.

Very few Syrian escapees of war for example landed at their own cost here.

Most genuine refugees would find it very difficult to make it to Ireland. Generally they have no documentation, passports, money, etc. The Syrians who made it here were helped, rightly, to get here. The bogus refugees came here with no help. They are here for economic reasons.

A refugee by definition is genuine.

You are talking bogus asylum seekers or just plain migrants.

But as has been pointed out, just because an asylum seeker has not been granted refugee status does not mean they are bogus. I have read a couple of the judicial reviews, where one judge commented that the guy that made decision to reject didn't even have a basic understanding of geography.

But yeah people do come to Ireland for economic reasons, they may have come from places where famine, disease and death may be just around the corner.

But that doesn't mean they have come here to sit on their arsé and soak up the welfare.

Our immigration laws are pretty strong, so like I said the best way to come to Ireland and actually work, is enter legally by a Visa and escape under the radar.

But for some reason that does not rile up the racists like asylum seekers do.

ToBeFrank123

alastair wrote: »

Every legitimate asylum seeker rocked up here on a plane or through ports. There isn’t really any alternative way to get in.

The 30% of asylum seekers who gain protection are not bogus, and many of the rejected applicants have valid cases that don’t meet the criteria for protection. See the piece in today’s IT. The notion that only ‘bogus’ claimants manage to make it to Ireland is, eh, bogus.

There's a big difference between hopping on a plane in Lagos, and being fished from the Mediterranean as your dingy sinks and eventually being brought to Ireland.

alastair

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There's a big difference between hopping on a plane in Lagos, and being fished from the Mediterranean as your dingy sinks and eventually being brought to Ireland.

Not when it comes to assessing your claim, there’s not.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

A refugee by definition is genuine.

You are talking bogus asylum seekers or just plain migrants.

But as has been pointed out, just because an asylum seeker has not been granted refugee status does not mean they are bogus. I have read a couple of the judicial reviews, where one judge commented that the guy that made decision to reject didn't even have a basic understanding of geography.

But yeah people do come to Ireland for economic reasons, they may have come from places where famine, disease and death may be just around the corner.

But that doesn't mean they have come here to sit on their arsé and soak up the welfare.

Our immigration laws are pretty strong, so like I said the best way to come to Ireland and actually work, is enter legally by a Visa and escape under the radar.

But for some reason that does not rile up the racists like asylum seekers do.

Ah the old racism card. I was wondering when you'd play that.

Australia stops people entering their county regardless of their race or colour, if they don't have a good reason to be in the country. No-one calls them racists. Although you probably would.

The laws are the laws. If you shouldn't be here you shouldn't be here. Nothing to do with racism.

Most countries outside the EU have strong laws to stop people entering illegally and calling themselves refugees.

You are conflating bogus refugees from countries like Albania (white Europeans mostly) with legitimate refugees such as Syrians.

In fact we could take far more Syrians if it wasn't for the illegals who you defend clogging up the system and taking up DPCs.

ToBeFrank123

alastair wrote: »

Not when it comes to assessing your claim, there’s not.

The bogus refugees from countries like Nigeria and Albania are clogging up the system, meaning genuine refugees like Syrians cannot be accommodated.

Does that sit well with you?

Galwayguy35

2ndcoming wrote: »

I used to work beside the Immigration place on Mount St and people threatened with deportation regularly threatened to hang themselves or set themselves on fire on site. A bit of an extreme reaction when faced with losing your dilapidated chalet in Mosney and €19 a week I would have thought. Don't think it ever made the news mind...

Nothing more than a stunt to gain publicity and avoid deportation, these chancers will try anything to remain in Ireland.

alastair

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The bogus refugees from countries like Nigeria and Albania are clogging up the system, meaning genuine refugees like Syrians cannot be accommodated.

Does that sit well with you?

5.5% of Nigerian applications were accepted last year. Does refusing Nigerian claims, and reneging on our legal obligation sit well with you?

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Ah the old racism card. I was wondering when you'd play that.

It's a fact not a card son, over stayers do not rile up the racists on here or elsewhere like asylum seekers do.

How many threads are going on about asylum seekers compared with illegal over stayers from China, Brazil and Philippines, etc?

I'll give you a hint none.

Bozo is on about giving .5 million of them amnesty.

Tumbleweed!

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

How many threads are going on about asylum seekers compared with illegal over stayers from China, Brazil and Philippines, etc?

I'll give you a hint none.

Well I'd deport them too, in a heartbeat. And no way should they be given amnesty except in very special circumstances.

Mr. teddywinkles

alastair wrote: »

5.5% of Nigerian applications were accepted last year. Does refusing Nigerian claims, and reneging on our legal obligation sit well with you?

As Iv stated and asked on here on what grounds were they accepted. So 94.5 % of Nigeria is safe. The rest is not?

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I'd deport them too, in a heartbeat. And no way should they be given amnesty except in very special circumstances.

You'd deport 26,000 people in a heart beat. Cool.

The vast vast majority work, it would have a fair negative effect on the economy.

Personally I would look into an amnesty type situation and try make money from it.

I realize that is a non edgy idea.

But hay and sunshine is my motto.

alastair

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

As Iv stated and asked on here on what grounds were they accepted. So 94.5 % of Nigeria is safe. The rest is not?

5.5% of claims met the criteria - each on their own merits. Plenty of unsafe situations people find themselves in don’t, but warrant a claim.

topper75

Boggles wrote: »

Seems like some of the locals are "terrorizing" a family that is connected to the man who use own the hotel.

Poor form if that is true and hopefully they are arrested and charged.

I'd have to agree with you that it's poor form when it comes to that.

But the dynamics that result in that are utterly unsurprising. If I want to create a business in a town I need to get planning permission. Notice must be given. I must justify.
However in this case the government makes the move, proceeds without a by your leave to alter the nature of the business associated with the facility, and it is in fact opposition that must be justified!
One perversion yields further perversions. The officials who are behind this have created a needless mess with their failure to consult.

Boggles

topper75 wrote: »

I'd have to agree with you that it's poor form when it comes to that.

But the dynamics that result in that are utterly unsurprising. If I want to create a business in a town I need to get planning permission. Notice must be given. I must justify.
However in this case the government makes the move, proceeds without a by your leave to alter the nature of the business associated with the facility, and it is in fact opposition that must be justified!
One perversion yields further perversions. The officials who are behind this have created a needless mess with their failure to consult.

The only ones responsible for criminal behavior is criminals.

Whether that be terrorizing an innocent family or trying to burn down hotels.

There is zero excuse for it.

Wibbling wonder

Boggles wrote: »

The only ones responsible for criminal behavior is criminals.

Whether that be terrorizing an innocent family or trying to burn down hotels.

There is zero excuse for it.

I know that this is a public forum so I'll try to be as balanced as possible. The "innocent" family is still the registered owner of the hotel and has been presenting quite a few conflicting arguments about what has happened. Some of their activities over the last few days have been questionable to put it mildly. It may well be that the new owner hasn't been registered yet but it appears they are still very closely linked to the hotel and what is currently going on there.

Having said that, I know this must be very uncomfortable for her but the phrase "you reap what you sow" springs to mind.

Boggles

Wibbling wonder wrote: »

I know that this is a public forum so I'll try to be as balanced as possible. The "innocent" family is still the registered owner of the hotel and has been presenting quite a few conflicting arguments about what has happened. Some of their activities over the last few days have been questionable to put it mildly. It may well be that the new owner hasn't been registered yet but it appears they are still very closely linked to the hotel and what is currently going on there.

Having said that, I know this must be very uncomfortable for her but the phrase "you reap what you sow" springs to mind.

Why would anyone believe an anonymous new reg on the internet that has just sprung up out of nowhere? Also balanced? good man yeah. :rolleyes:

She claims her family have nothing to with the hotel and even if she did there is zero excuse for Muldoon justice terrorizing some family with kids.

I have to say if you are from the area you are painting a very bleak picture of at least some of the residents, yourself included.