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

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

Even simpler is the concept of voluntary deportation where enforcement isn’t required. Which is preferable for most people.

A 'concept' with no supportive data provided is simply that: a suggestion, notion, theory or thought.

Whereas (again back to reality) the figure stands at 15%.

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

Confused about labelling everything you don't like being discussed as racist .

No, just your incoherent post.

Seathrun66

Gatling wrote: »

Bit of a cop out considering how many posts you have in this thread,

Simple answer - to make our state one of many places of refuge for those fleeing persecution.

It’s really very clear. Your objection to the above would be what exactly?

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Problem is it's not as easy as a simple default answer.

The majority claiming they're 'fleeing persecution' or some such, as you may have (very slowly) learned by now - have had their cases rejected, after being considered. Rejected.

Which means seeking economic benefit/refuge (or welfare) is the more likely explanation.
For which, there is no case nor obligation to accept.

Simple answer - to make our state one of many places of refuge for those fleeing persecution.

What part do you object to?

Seathrun66

Gatling wrote: »

Is it's more so that once someone like yourself labels someone as racist is can't be disproved ,so we get posters throwing the term or skirting around the bush trying to be clever by not directly calling someone a racist in an attempt to censor any conversation you don't want being discussed .

Can someone please interpret this for me? There’s a point there somewhere.

alastair

Gatling wrote: »

Seems you don't actually know how the system works

I understand perfectly well, cheers.

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

A 'concept' with no supportive data provided is simply that: a suggestion, notion, theory or thought.

Whereas (again back to reality) the figure stands at 15%.

The data is perfectly clear. Only 15% of deportation orders required enforcement.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

You do get that being 'served' with something is very different from the actual reality of physically getting deported.

e.g. 140 people were deported from the country in 2017, but some 932 deportation orders were made in 2017. Again let's do the (simple) math.
932/140 = 15% effective removal rate.

Sure you'd be scratching your head if you ordered and paid for a full pizza, only to receive a single slice (with a bite taken out) in a cardboard box. You'd likely question the effectiveness of the pizza shop.

You’re deliberately excluding the voluntary leavers.

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Simple answer - to make our state one of many places of refuge for those fleeing persecution.

Wasn't this question already answered, can't imagine there is much to add:


The majority claiming they're 'fleeing persecution' or some such, as you may have (very slowly) learned by now - had their cases rejected. Rejected.

Which means the majority are seeking economic (or other) benefit and not genuine cases. For which, there is no case nor obligation to accept.



What part of ignoring the very high rejection figure do you object to?

enricoh

Boggles wrote: »

You mean all "types" of youths in a disadvantaged area creating social problems.



It's not racist at all to point social problems in a disadvantaged area, it is fairly racist just to point out the colours you don't like though.

Grade a drivel. It was probably racists that labelled the child grooming gangs in the uk as pakistani.
Should'a just said they were disadvantaged!

enricoh

alastair wrote: »

The data is perfectly clear. Only 15% of deportation orders required enforcement.

Aye, reward the spoofers that appeal and appeal their decision with leave to remain. That'll learn them!

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

You’re deliberately excluding the voluntary leavers.

You’re deliberately not supplying any evidence of such figures, maybe there is a few, who knows, again entirely speculative.



You're also deliberately ignoring the many who may appeal (instead of leave), which could well be a significant number.



Thus all we have concrete, to go on so far, is the lowly 15% figure.

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Wasn't this question already answered, can't imagine there is much to add:


The majority claiming they're 'fleeing persecution' or some such, as you may have (very slowly) learned by now - had their cases rejected. Rejected.

Which means the majority are seeking economic (or other) benefit and not genuine cases. For which, there is no case nor obligation to accept.



What part of ignoring the very high rejection figure do you object to?

It means their case didn’t meet the criteria for asylum, nothing more that you can surmise from outside the assessment process. They could all have perfectly valid cases to make, and still not meet the criteria. So don’t pretend you have any insight.

alastair

enricoh wrote: »

Aye, reward the spoofers that appeal and appeal their decision with leave to remain. That'll learn them!

Nobody with leave to remain is issued a deportation order.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Wasn't this question already answered, can't imagine there is much to add:


The majority claiming they're 'fleeing persecution' or some such, as you may have (very slowly) learned by now - had their cases rejected. Rejected.

Which means the majority are seeking economic (or other) benefit and not genuine cases. For which, there is no case nor obligation to accept.



What part of ignoring the very high rejection figure do you object to?

Not an answer. What part of the place of refuge do you object to?

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

The data is perfectly clear.

Very clear: 85% likely didn't actually leave (again, supply data to support if they left of their own free will). Appealing the decision could well be the likely avenue for most.

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

You’re deliberately not supplying any evidence of such figures, maybe there is a few, who knows, again entirely speculative.



You're also deliberately ignoring the many who may appeal (instead of leave), which could well be a significant number.



Thus all we have concrete, to go on so far, is the lowly 15% figure.

Your difficulty in understanding the stats isn’t really a major concern. All ex asylum seekers issued with deportation orders leave the country. The majority through repatriation arrangements, a minority through enforced deportation with Gardai for company.

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Very clear: 85% likely didn't actually leave (again, supply data to support if they left of their own free will). Appealing the decision could well be the likely avenue for most.

You’ve been provided with the data. Your personal fantasy of a land filled with ex asylum seekers that nobody notices is entirely your own concern.

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

What part of the place of refuge do you object to?

All we have to go on is facts, for the vast majority overall, their cases of refuge were rejected. I.e. Not in need of genuine refuge.

Aside from the genuine cases (with Syrians), the case rejection rate was in the very, very high percentile indeed.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

You’re deliberately not supplying any evidence of such figures, maybe there is a few, who knows, again entirely speculative.



You're also deliberately ignoring the many who may appeal (instead of leave), which could well be a significant number.



Thus all we have concrete, to go on so far, is the lowly 15% figure.

181 in the year up to November 2018.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/deportation-highest-among-people-from-pakistan-and-china-1.3686110?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fdeportation-highest-among-people-from-pakistan-and-china-1.3686110

Add the deportations and appeals to those. Rounds up your figure from 15% to 100%.

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

You’ve been provided with the data.

Kindly supply such data showing the percent that left voluntary.
Otherwise, all we have to go on is the published 15% figure.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Very clear: 85% likely didn't actually leave (again, supply data to support if they left of their own free will). Appealing the decision could well be the likely avenue for most.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/deportation-highest-among-people-from-pakistan-and-china-1.3686110?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fdeportation-highest-among-people-from-pakistan-and-china-1.3686110

181 left last year. Rest were deported or appealed.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

All we have to go on is facts, for the vast majority overall, their cases of refuge were rejected. I.e. Not in need of genuine refuge.

Aside from the genuine cases (with Syrians), the case rejection rate was in the very, very high percentile indeed.

And they are then deported, appeal or leave voluntarily.

Once more, what is your objection to Ireland being a place of refuge for those fleeing persecution? Third time of asking. If you don't want any foreigners here at all then just say so. Don't mask it in faux concern.

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Kindly supply such data showing the percent that left voluntary.
Otherwise, all we have to go on is the published 15% figure.

The remainder of those issued deportation orders. You’ve seen the data.

4068ac1elhodqr

Seathrun66 wrote: »

181 in the year up to November 2018.
Add the deportations and appeals to those. Rounds up your figure from 15% to 100%.

Paywalled website.


Also the (very small figure) of 181 (from thousands) isn't stated as having voluntarily left, but just as 'deported' (in the 1st para of the blocked webpage).



15% isn't 100%, unless having trouble with the concept of reality.
Maybe if you add-in non-deported 'appeals' (of 85%) you'd get somewhere close to 100%.

4068ac1elhodqr

alastair wrote: »

The remainder of those issued deportation orders. You’ve seen the data.

You've read the response, here it is again anyway if it didn't sink in:

----
You do get that being 'served' with something is very different from the actual reality of physically getting deported.

e.g. 140 people were deported from the country in 2017, but some 932 deportation orders were made in 2017. Again let's do the (simple) math.
932/140 = 15% effective removal rate.
----

Boggles

enricoh wrote: »

It was probably racists that labelled the child grooming gangs in the uk as pakistani.
Should'a just said they were disadvantaged!

Same principal lad.

Surprised I have to explain it to you.

But there you go.

You are welcome.

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

Paywalled website.


Also the (very small figure) of 181 (from thousands) isn't stated as having voluntarily left, but just as 'deported' (in the 1st para of the blocked webpage).



15% isn't 100%, unless having trouble with the concept of reality.
Maybe if you add-in non-deported 'appeals' (of 85%) you'd get somewhere close to 100%.

Google 'asylum seeker Ireland voluntary deportees' and you'll get the figure if you can't access the ITs.

And you're thus disputing the Irish Times figure of 181 voluntary leavers? Based on what exactly?

Seathrun66

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

You've read the response, here it is again anyway if it didn't sink in:

----
You do get that being 'served' with something is very different from the actual reality of physically getting deported.

e.g. 140 people were deported from the country in 2017, but some 932 deportation orders were made in 2017. Again let's do the (simple) math.
932/140 = 15% effective removal rate.
----

Nope. Wrong again. You're ignoring the voluntary deportees and those with the right of appeal.

You patronised the literacy level of refugees and then ironically failed your spelling test.
Relieved to see you didn't question their numeracy skills to draw attention to your own.

alastair

Lawson Ambitious Condo wrote: »

You've read the response, here it is again anyway if it didn't sink in:

----
You do get that being 'served' with something is very different from the actual reality of physically getting deported.

e.g. 140 people were deported from the country in 2017, but some 932 deportation orders were made in 2017. Again let's do the (simple) math.
932/140 = 15% effective removal rate.
----

I’m not the one with the comprehension difficulty. Enforced deportations are a subset of deportation orders. Enforcement is only required where the order isn’t adhered to.

The ‘effective removal rate’ is only pertinent to where ‘removal’ was enforced.