Immigration and the housing crisis

gar32

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm sorry but BS. Landlords don't build homes and never did. Tax breaks for landlords will go straight into landlords pockets and will do next to zilch to drive unit construction. If you're seeking for institutional investors to be taxed at the same rate as individual landlords for the sake of equity that's a different arguement. In any case, there's no moral arguement for passive, unproductive income to be taxed at less than people's labour. Rent has to come from people's pockets in the productive economy and gets passed to a landlord sitting on an asset - it's immoral for that rental income to be taxed at less than labour.

There's more than enough suppressed demand from individuals and couples seeking to build homes to drive the construction industry - we don't need buy-to-let property spivs to be given a further advantage over first time buyers or those seeking to trade-up.


Further, the supply supply supply merchants are only telling about 10% of the story when it comes to housing affordability.

I did not suggest giving land lords tax breaks but reduce tax on builds so prices could be cheaper for the buyer or the renter !!!

Donald Trump

alastair wrote: »

You made the claim - are you saying you don’t understand the claim you made now?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112465472&postcount=302

Pamela appealed the decision - legally. Once that appeal process was exhausted, she was deported. She didn’t remain here beyond the end of the process.

Lol. What am I supposed to have claimed in that post?

You definition of the "end of the process" seems to allow you to shift those goalposts at will. If we find a story of someone who has been living in plain sight after being ordered to be deported 30 years ago sure you can just say "it's not the end of the process yet - they might be able to get leave to remain in 10 year or they might be deported in 20".

You don't appear to have much understanding of the law.

It is legal to make an asylum claim. It is also legal to make a claim on your insurance.

It is not legal to make false statements on lies on an asylum application.
The same as it is not legal to make false statements or lies on an insurance claim.

In the time between her deportation order and her final judgment, paid for with over 1m Euro of Irish taxpayer money, she was in Ireland illegally. The deportation order would have been just stayed pending the results of her appeal. It didn't disappear. It just wasn't enforced.

You know that if you enter the US by making a false declaration on say your visa waiver, that you will be there illegally? It isn't a difficult concept. You are there illegally even if they don't realise you lied.
If you go for 90 days and 60 days in they discovered you lied, it does not mean you were there legally for the first 60 days.

Lets say you are convicted of murder. You will be allowed to make an appeal after conviction. While you are waiting for your appeal to be heard, you are not considered to be innocent and allowed out of jail.

I can't really think of any more analogies to try to explain simple things to you. You either have the intellectual capacity to understand or you don't.

alastair

Donald Trump wrote: »

Lol. What am I supposed to have claimed in that post?

You definition of the "end of the process" seems to allow you to shift those goalposts at will. If we find a story of someone who has been living in plain sight after being ordered to be deported 30 years ago sure you can just say "it's not the end of the process yet - they might be able to get leave to remain in 10 year or they might be deported in 20".

You don't appear to have much understanding of the law.

It is legal to make an asylum claim. It is also legal to make a claim on your insurance.

It is not legal to make false statements on lies on an asylum application.
The same as it is not legal to make false statements or lies on an insurance claim.

In the time between her deportation order and her final judgment, paid for with over 1m Euro of Irish taxpayer money, she was in Ireland illegally. The deportation order would have been just stayed pending the results of her appeal. It didn't disappear. It just wasn't enforced.

You know that if you enter the US by making a false declaration on say your visa waiver, that you will be there illegally? It isn't a difficult concept. You are there illegally even if they don't realise you lied.
If you go for 90 days and 60 days in they discovered you lied, it does not mean you were there legally for the first 60 days.

Lets say you are convicted of murder. You will be allowed to make an appeal after conviction. While you are waiting for your appeal to be heard, you are not considered to be innocent and allowed out of jail.

I can't really think of any more analogies to try to explain simple things to you. You either have the intellectual capacity to understand or you don't.

The end of the process isn’t a complicated notion. It’s where there’s no judicial review or ministerial appeal mechanism remaining. My understanding of the law reflects the actuality of the law. No room for shifting goalposts there. So where is the evidence to support your claim?

Donald Trump

alastair wrote: »

The end of the process isn’t a complicated notion. It’s where there’s no judicial review or ministerial appeal mechanism remaining. My understanding of the law reflects the actuality of the law. No room for shifting goalposts there. So where is the evidence to support your claim?

So the end of the process is the EU Supreme court or maybe a UN court???? :pac: Just be honest. It's wherever it suits it to be for you for any given case that is pointed out to you. It may not be the same for any two of them, just wherever your cognitive dissonance allows your brain to place it to keep you happy

My claim that African Americans are entitled to identify as such?
My claim that the bould Pamela stayed here for 6 years after being issued with deportation orders?
My claim the Kunle was allowed to come back and stay here after being deported?
My claim that the Chinese boy was allowed to stay without being deported despite being issued with a deportation order?

I think that whatever thing you think I claimed is in your imagination. Along with the idea that the 96% of Nigerians applicants for asylum whose claims were found to be bogus, just upped and left immediately.

alastair

Donald Trump wrote: »

So the end of the process is the EU Supreme court or maybe a UN court? :pac:

My claim that African Americans are entitled to identify as such?
My claim that the bould Pamela stayed here for 6 years after being issued with deportation orders?
My claim the Kunle was allowed to come back and stay here after being deported?
My claim that the Chinese boy was allowed to stay without being deported despite being issued with a deportation order?

I think that whatever thing you think I claimed is in your imagination. Along with the idea that the 96% of Nigerians applicants for asylum whose claims were found to be bogus, just upped and left immediately.

Not my imagination - once again:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112465472&postcount=302

So try and deal with responding to what I actually wrote, and not ‘ideas’ you’ve drummed up yourself.

And no - there’s no cognitive dissonance required to determine if judicial reviews have completed. It’s pretty straightforward.

Donald Trump

alastair wrote: »

Not my imagination - once again:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112465472&postcount=302

So try and deal with responding to what I actually wrote, and not ‘ideas’ you’ve drummed up yourself.

You want proof that Olunkunle Eluhanla existed?

Or do you want proof that you yourself appear to think that the 96% of failed asylum seekers upped and left?

Or do you want proof of the admittedly rough figure of about 50k successful asylum seekers? I'd say it's about the right ballpark for Ireland?

Anything else is in your head dude. Read it again, or failing that, ask a friend to read it to you.

alastair

Donald Trump wrote: »

You want proof that Olunkunle Eluhanla existed?

Or do you want proof that you yourself appear to think that the 96% of failed asylum seekers upped and left?

Or do you want proof of the admittedly rough figure of about 50k successful asylum seekers? I'd say it's about the right ballpark for Ireland?

Anything else is in your head dude. Read it again, or failing that, ask a friend to read it to you.

Your claim is that he met the criteria I put forward. Unless you’d some other reason to post his name up in response to my request? 🤔

Donald Trump

alastair wrote: »

And no - there’s no cognitive dissonance required to determine if judicial reviews have completed. It’s pretty straightforward.

You are ridiculous dude. You are defining the end of the process as being EU supreme court and failed ministerial appeal.

So if we find 100 cases of people who have stayed here for 20 years after going into hiding sure you'll just say "it's not the end of the process because it hasn't gone to the EU supreme court like Pamela did so it's not over so it doesn't count"

Woman deported after going into hiding for 5 years.
https://www.thejournal.ie/deportation-of-nigerian-woman-upheld-2768246-May2016/

Here is a gas story about poor oul' Pam going into hiding in 2005. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mother-goes-into-hiding-to-escape-deportation-25951019.html

What do you want? A newspaper article about a person who wasn't deported but who wasn't granted leave to appeal? That's a bit like asking for a newspaper report for outing someone as a shoplifter even though they were not prosecuted.


But I'm fed up replying to you. I feel sorry for you. But I'm done on this.

And yes. Kunle Was deported and then was allowed to stay here. Exactly what you asked for and you must be still sickened. Was allowed back in and only for he kept acting the bollix, he'd still be here.
And if he was still here you'd say sure he hasn't been here until the end of time or something :pac:

tonysopprano

Drop into Mountjoy or Cloverhill to see many who failed to self deport and were caught and will be deported now.

alastair

Donald Trump wrote: »

You are ridiculous dude. You are defining the end of the process as being EU supreme court and failed ministerial appeal.

So if we find 100 cases of people who have stayed here for 20 years after going into hiding sure you'll just say "it's not the end of the process because it hasn't gone to the EU supreme court like Pamela did so it's not over so it doesn't count"

Woman deported after going into hiding for 5 years.
https://www.thejournal.ie/deportation-of-nigerian-woman-upheld-2768246-May2016/

Here is a gas story about poor oul' Pam going into hiding in 2005. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mother-goes-into-hiding-to-escape-deportation-25951019.html

What do you want? A newspaper article about a person who wasn't deported but who wasn't granted leave to appeal? That's a bit like asking for a newspaper report for outing someone as a shoplifter even though they were not prosecuted.


But I'm fed up replying to you. I feel sorry for you. But I'm done on this.

You haven’t produced a single instance - let alone 100. The reason being there’s precisely zero evidence to support the notion.

You can’t simply pluck a European court case out of the ether - it has to follow on from a failed Supreme Court judgement here, so no - nobody can go into hiding for twenty years and then retroactively decide to go to the European courts.

What I want is what I asked for. Perhaps you might focus this time?

Let me know when you’ve evidence of a single deported failed asylum seeker staying here after the process has ended. One shouldn’t be too hard to find,what with there being supposedly thousands of the feckers. Some of that verifiable data you mentioned.

Put up, or shut up.

alastair

tonysopprano wrote: »

Drop into Mountjoy or Cloverhill to see many who failed to self deport and were caught and will be deported now.

That’s called enforced deportation. 20% of deportations.

alastair

Donald Trump wrote: »

And yes. Kunle Was deported and then was allowed to stay here. Exactly what you asked for and you must be still sickened. Was allowed back in and only for he kept acting the bollix, he'd still be here.
And if he was still here you'd say sure he hasn't been here until the end of time or something :pac:

He was deported. He was allowed to return, on the back of a determination that the deportation was premature, but only temporarily. Where does any of that match the following?

Let me know when you’ve evidence of a single deported failed asylum seeker staying here after the process has ended. One shouldn’t be too hard to find,what with there being supposedly thousands of the feckers. Some of that verifiable data you mentioned.

Put up, or shut up.

weldoninhio

alastair wrote: »

She didn’t stay here past a deportation order. She was granted leave to remain. Next?

She wasn’t entitled to make a claim in the UK, but she was here.

You can claim asylum anywhere. How is someone “not entitled” to claim asylum somewhere??

weldoninhio

alastair wrote: »

If a minister thinks that there’s good reason to overturn a deportation, then that’s fine by me. The family in Bray certainly didn’t warrant deporting. Kunle Elunhanla was deported.

Every asylum claim needs to be assessed on it’s own merits. That’s a pretty straightforward ‘hard stop’.

The Chinese kid and mother weren’t claiming asylum. The mother overstayed on a visa and was here illegally.

lawrencesummers

gar32 wrote: »

I did not suggest giving land lords tax breaks but reduce tax on builds so prices could be cheaper for the buyer or the renter !!!

The market decides the price more so than the cost of construction. Developers will sell for the highest price that they can get. Reduce their cost on construction and you just increase their margins.

Yurt2

weldoninhio wrote: »

The Chinese kid and mother weren’t claiming asylum. The mother overstayed on a visa and was here illegally.

What's more, she was nabbed fraudulently obtaining an Irish passport for her child. She should have served a prison sentence for what is a serious offence and been given the road. No sign of baby-daddy in any of her story also. Was conveniently left out of the narrative.

lawrencesummers

This great thread has blamed Everything from racism, asylum seekers and landlords as the cause of the housing Crisis. What about a different approach that is used in a lot of parts of the world.

What I would like to see investigated and given consideration is a ban, or a much higher tax rate on the foreign ownership of property (foreign as in non resident, people or companies who are not paying their taxes here) Remove the financial investors and vulture funds from the market and you remove one of the drivers of higher rents, you release a lot of property back to the market for sales to private ownership.

There may well be exceptions like embassies, commercial premises, charities etc but removing some (cash rush) demand from the market Will help level or lower the price of rent or purchase making it more affordable for the people who live and pay their taxes here.

Yurt2

lawrencesummers wrote: »

This great thread has blamed Everything from racism, asylum seekers and landlords as the cause of the housing Crisis. What about a different approach that is used in a lot of parts of the world.

What I would like to see investigated and given consideration is a ban, or a much higher tax rate on the foreign ownership of property (foreign as in non resident, people or companies who are not paying their taxes here) Remove the financial investors and vulture funds from the market and you remove one of the drivers of higher rents, you release a lot of property back to the market for sales to private ownership.

There may well be exceptions like embassies, commercial premises, charities etc but removing some (cash rush) demand from the market Will help level or lower the price of rent or purchase making it more affordable for the people who live and pay their taxes here.

A superb idea, but the property lobby would throw a fit.

In Denmark (they have an EU derogation for this) non citizens may only own property if they are resident in the country for a number of years and it is their primary residence (and with permission from the government).

New Zealand recently introduced a law barring non citizens from buying residential property (with the exception of Aus and Singaporean citizens as they have previous reciprocal trade arrangements with).

Lonesomerhodes

There is a great video doing the rounds on facebook on the yellow vest Ireland page

A lady is debating Ruth Coppinger and Joe Higgins of the lunatic left.

She is basically saying we should house Irish people before immigrants.

a highlight of it is

A leftie looney says to her 'Do you consider a direct provision centre a home?.

She responds 'Do you consider a shopfront door a home?.

It's a good video and she has great gumption and simple questions left TD's cannot answer.

Can't post it now in work.

TwoMonthsOff

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

There is a great video doing the rounds on facebook on the yellow vest Ireland page

A lady is debating Ruth Coppinger and Joe Higgins of the lunatic left.

She is basically saying we should house Irish people before immigrants.

a highlight of it is

A leftie looney says to her 'Do you consider a direct provision centre a home?.

She responds 'Do you consider a shopfront door a home?.

It's a good video and she has great gumption and simple questions left TD's cannot answer.

Can't post it now in work.

I seen that, I'm not understanding what this 50/50 thing is though, maybe you could explain it?

greendom

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

There is a great video doing the rounds on facebook on the yellow vest Ireland page

A lady is debating Ruth Coppinger and Joe Higgins of the lunatic left.

She is basically saying we should house Irish people before immigrants.

a highlight of it is

A leftie looney says to her 'Do you consider a direct provision centre a home?.

She responds 'Do you consider a shopfront door a home?.

It's a good video and she has great gumption and simple questions left TD's cannot answer.

Can't post it now in work.

Let's put 2 impoverished groups up against each other. Each can blame the other and those really responsible can walk away scot free

WrenBoy

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

I seen that, I'm not understanding what this 50/50 thing is though, maybe you could explain it?

Is it on youtube ? Did a quick search there and couldn't find it.

TwoMonthsOff

WrenBoy wrote: »

Is it on youtube ? Did a quick search there and couldn't find it.

It's on facebook I'll try find it again, the locals have been advised terribly here. Looking for social housing to be shared 50/50 between Irish and foreigners lol


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=586934298820564&id=100025119980798

alastair

weldoninhio wrote: »

You can claim asylum anywhere. How is someone “not entitled” to claim asylum somewhere??

The Dublin Regulation - once you make a claim, or are registered in one EU country, you can’t make a claim in another EU country. It’s an EU- specific rule.

alastair

weldoninhio wrote: »

The Chinese kid and mother weren’t claiming asylum. The mother overstayed on a visa and was here illegally.

Never said they were.

alastair

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

It's on facebook I'll try find it again, the locals have been advised terribly here. Looking for social housing to be shared 50/50 between Irish and foreigners lol


https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=586934298820564&id=100025119980798

Well - that was a bag of ****e.

ghost of ireland past

Anyone who wants to house foreigners before the Irish appears to harbour an intense hatred of the irish. There are several posters like that on this thread.

They should be pitied, and ignored. They're mentally ill.

weldoninhio

alastair wrote: »

The Dublin Regulation - once you make a claim, or are registered in one EU country, you can’t make a claim in another EU country. It’s an EU- specific rule.

So when she was a student in U.K. and claimed asylum she was allowed. She then had no right to claim in Ireland.

TwoMonthsOff

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Anyone who wants to house foreigners before the Irish appears to harbour an intense hatred of the irish. There are several posters like that on this thread.

They should be pitied, and ignored. They're mentally ill.

They should be put up against a wall. You know the rest.

alastair

weldoninhio wrote: »

So when she was a student in U.K. and claimed asylum she was allowed. She then had no right to claim in Ireland.

She was a student in Ireland, and registered here - hence couldn’t make a claim in the UK. Her claim was transferred back here.

Her right to, and indeed success in, applying here is a matter of record - since she attained leave to remain.