Sinn Fein end Direct Provision

Real Life

threeball wrote: »

In Ireland we want to live in a utopia but don't want to pay for it. We want services like a Swede but to be taxed like an American.

I think if we were provided with services like a Swede most people would be happy to be taxed like them too.

weldoninhio

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

They're being kept there under direct provision. As well you know

But you compared the empty hotel (first of all,no one was being kept there at the time, and secondly people are free to leave DP any time they want) with a private house that someone bought and paid for?? So the point you think you were making is pointless. :rolleyes:

MakingMovies2

weldoninhio wrote: »

But you compared the empty hotel (first of all,no one was being kept there at the time, and secondly people are free to leave DP any time they want) with a private house that someone bought and paid for?? So the point you think you were making is pointless. :rolleyes:

I honestly don't know what youre talking about. It's like something a child would write

Wibbs

Kivaro wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell.
But unfortunately too much money can be made by the various CEO-paid asylum charities and special-interest-NGO's; that coupled with the fear of being labeled "racist" stopped the previous governments from fixing the issue before it became the massive problem that it is today i.e. forcing asylum applicants into small rural communities.

Also, let's not forget that the overwhelming vast majority of asylum seekers are bogus, so we are housing and feeding a substantial amount of chancers, who will continue to be chancers after they exhaust their numerous legal appeals (paid for by Irish workers) and then get leave to remain.

+1

bubblypop wrote: »

Are they?
Where did you find the statistics for this?

Ireland has the lowest rate of rejection for asylum seekers in the EU.

The Irish authorities had the lowest rate of refusal to applications from asylum seekers of any of the EU’s 28 member states last year.

Only 15% of first-time decisions on asylum applications in Ireland were rejected, compared to an EU average of 63%.

And of those applicants the numbers break down like this(2018 figures). Those from places like Nigeria. Albania and Georgia are overwhelmingly rejected as chancers, though on appeal some get through. That's before we consider the numbers who showed up here before the having a kid here loophole was closed. Most of whom were from countries we now reject the vast majority of the time. Sadly that horse has long bolted and we'll be dealing with that BS for generations. Note that those actual refugees from actual warzones like Syria are almost never rejected.

We're a soft touch in this game and the numbers back this up. Elsewhere in the EU 63% are told to head off, in Ireland it's 15%. But no, we're apparently racist bastards who should wear sackcloth and ashes. Go away to hell.

weldoninhio

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

I honestly don't know what youre talking about. It's like something a child would write

I'll try to explain slowly, the Boards equivalent to using crayons for you.

1. How can someone be "kept" somewhere they are free to leave at any time??

blanch152

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

Good it's about time dp was cancelled. Its a disgusting, racist grubby little smear on this countries name. Packing refugees into substandard accommodation like sardines, did anyone think that was acceptable in the first place?

We treat refugees and asylum seekers far better than other European countries do.

MakingMovies2

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'll try to explain slowly, the Boards equivalent to using crayons for you.

1. How can someone be "kept" somewhere they are free to leave at any time??

How does that justify setting it on fire ? Are you that stupid?

Lonesomerhodes

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

More tall tales I suppose? I bet it was the Ritz Carlton they were in and they were zooming around in BMW's. That's what a fella said a few pages ago.

No it was the Westbury Honeymoon suite.


Acutally a dive hotel in Waterford, you know the type. A rural dump some ould lad let's fall asunder, doesn't put one one single cent into it, allows them to kill one another in it and is happy as Larry as he has a full hotel year round no right minded person would go near as it's a complete kip but thanks to his 'concern' for asylum seekers it's full!.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwww bless his heart!. :rolleyes:

The electrician in question isn't easily shocked this lad, but he was when he was in this hotel. Said it was like Calcutta the state of it and lads trying to rob his tools left right and centre. Couldn't even put them down

weldoninhio

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

How does that justify setting it on fire ? Are you that stupid?

Don't be getting ahead of yourself. Baby steps. You didn't understand when I explained in grown up sentences.

2. How many "refugees" were begin "kept" in the hotel when it was set on fire??

Sephiroth_dude

MakingMovies2 wrote: »

Just **** off

Mod

Don't post in this thread again.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

+1

Ireland has the lowest rate of rejection for asylum seekers in the EU.

The Irish authorities had the lowest rate of refusal to applications from asylum seekers of any of the EU’s 28 member states last year.

Only 15% of first-time decisions on asylum applications in Ireland were rejected, compared to an EU average of 63%.

And of those applicants the numbers break down like this(2018 figures). Those from places like Nigeria. Albania and Georgia are overwhelmingly rejected as chancers, though on appeal some get through. That's before we consider the numbers who showed up here before the having a kid here loophole was closed. Most of whom were from countries we now reject the vast majority of the time. Sadly that horse has long bolted and we'll be dealing with that BS for generations. Note that those actual refugees from actual warzones like Syria are almost never rejected.

We're a soft touch in this game and the numbers back this up. Elsewhere in the EU 63% are told to head off, in Ireland it's 15%. But no, we're apparently racist bastards who should wear sackcloth and ashes. Go away to hell.

They were predominately Syrians. Ireland's rejection rate has been 90%+. One of the highest in Europe.

Ireland refuses asylum to 90pc of applicants

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

Ireland's rejection rate has been 90%+

Ireland refuses asylum to 90pc of applicants

And yet many failed asylum seekers are still here despite several application rejections .

We need a proper secure asylum centres where asylum cases can be determined and if applications failed they should be returned to their country of origin immediately

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

And yet many failed asylum seekers are still here despite several application rejections .

We need a proper secure asylum centres where asylum cases can be determined and if applications failed they should be returned to their country of origin immediately

You mean a prison?

CrankyHaus

Boggles wrote: »

You mean a prison?

A prison is a place in which a convicted criminal serves their sentence.


Asylum seekers could leave a secure facility at any time by withdrawing their claim to asylum and leaving the country.


Any sovereign nation has the right to secure its borders. In fact it has a duty to its citizens to do so. I'd argue that the Irish State fails this duty. Certainly it did so in Dundalk in January 2018 when an Egyptian asylum seeker, whom the Gardai had left to roam freely around the country, went on a stabbing rampage in the name of ISIS.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

They were predominately Syrians. Ireland's rejection rate has been 90%+. One of the highest in Europe.

Ireland refuses asylum to 90pc of applicants

Are NGO apologists like Beetlejuice? Mention them thrice in a thread and they show up?

Yep we rejected 90% of the chancers, from such places as Albania, Nigeria, Georgia et al. As did the rest of the EU. Because they're chancers. As I said, pity we didn't have the same criteria in place in the early noughties. Though apparently they were all good upstanding potential citizens. By magic.

Gynoid

Wibbs wrote: »

Are NGO apologists like Beetlejuice? Mention them thrice in a thread and they show up?

must remember that one

BarryD2

rgossip30 wrote: »

The Sinn Fein manifesto on Immigration is to end Direct provision .What is the alternative and how is this to be achieved ?

I think 'Demographics' is their plan to sort it..

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Are NGO apologists like Beetlejuice? Mention them thrice in a thread and they show up?

Yep we rejected 90% of the chancers, from such places as Albania, Nigeria, Georgia et al. As did the rest of the EU. Because they're chancers. As I said, pity we didn't have the same criteria in place in the early noughties. Though apparently they were all good upstanding potential citizens. By magic.

Ì thought you stated we were the lowest and the rest of the EU were far higher?



Pointing out bullshít doesn't make me an apologist for anyone, does it?

"Here is a fact" - Bloody Apologist *shakes fist*.

:rolleyes:

EmmetSpiceland

Would be great if they could get “rid” of it but there’s too much money being made for anything to, majorly, change.

We don’t have “private” prisons in the state so we end up with vicious criminals getting lenient sentences, or at least they get out early.

With DP you get people languishing for nearly 10 years in these “centres” with no sign of the process either changing or being improved.

Boggles

CrankyHaus wrote: »

A prison is a place in which a convicted criminal serves their sentence.


Asylum seekers could leave a secure facility at any time by withdrawing their claim to asylum and leaving the country.

So you want to threat them like convicted criminals without the conviction part?

Yeah, that isn't going happen.

Irish White Nationalist wet dreams won't become policy, the electorate again has well and truly rejected that horséshít.

Time for those ne'er do wells to get out of their Mother's spare room and get a job and do a course or something and stop blaming minorities for all their own inadequacies in life.

Above all else it is just plain boring now.

Thinkingaboutit

SF voters will have cause to rue their vote when competition for already scarce affordable accommodation, employment (good enough there's plenty now but low wage employment won't pay for the first, and a rent freeze will mean even less accomodation) and benefits becomes even harder with an more open door immigration policy. Labour voters in the North of England finally copped on that they matters less to Labour than Pakistani migrants who for all the issues they create, always vote Labour, and don't demand much, and are a somewhat disposable labour source for business donors. SF voters will learn that the close attention a SF rep gives to this or that question or problem put to them personally at the door or in a clinic, won't compensate for a destructive, anti-worker migration policy.

Gynoid

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

With DP you get people languishing for nearly 10 years in these “centres” with no sign of the process either changing or being improved.

That is a disgrace for sure . Perhaps a good investment would be to spend a good bit of money recruiting a significant number of qualified people (eg legal, civil service, reassign from overloaded depts) to process applications, prioritise approved people and escort out failed applicants. Surely every application does not have to go to court and if presently it does, then remedy that loophole with legislation. A fair assessment, professionally done. Quickly. It should really be a top priority.

CrankyHaus

Boggles wrote: »

So you want to threat them like convicted criminals without the conviction part?

Yeah, that isn't going happen.

Irish White Nationalist wet dreams won't become policy, the electorate again has well and truly rejected that horséshít.

Time for those ne'er do wells to get out of their Mother's spare room and get a job and do a course or something and stop blaming minorities for all their own inadequacies in life.

Above all else it is just plain boring now.

Are you capable of discussing anything without putting words in people's mouths and throwing (weirdly specific) abuse at anyone who disagrees with you?

Boggles

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Are you capable of discussing anything without putting words in people's mouths

CrankyHaus wrote: »

A prison is a place in which a convicted criminal serves their sentence.


Asylum seekers could leave a secure facility at any time by withdrawing their claim to asylum and leaving the country.

They are your words lad.

Own them.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Ì thought you stated we were the lowest and the rest of the EU were far higher?

We are the lowest depending on which figures and the demographics of you look at. Our rejection of the bogus and chancers is around the same as the rest of the EU, a little higher than some, lower than others. Of Syrians we essentially rejected none of them, whereas rejection rates around the EU for Syrians were higher. We were seen as a soft touch by the chancers, otherwise they wouldn't be travelling to the edge of Europe if interim on that journey states were seen as more open.

We were certainly a soft touch back in the noughties, when just taking one group; Nigerians grew in population by 82% between 2000 and 2007(when the give birth here get residency loophole was plugged). The same people that if they tried to apply today would be face a rejection rate of nearly 100%.

Wibbs

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Are you capable of discussing anything without putting words in people's mouths and throwing (weirdly specific) abuse at anyone who disagrees with you?

No.

rgossip30

Wibbs wrote: »

We are the lowest depending on which figures and the demographics of you look at. Our rejection of the bogus and chancers is around the same as the rest of the EU, a little higher than some, lower than others. Of Syrians we essentially rejected none of them, whereas rejection rates around the EU for Syrians were higher. We were seen as a soft touch by the chancers, otherwise they wouldn't be travelling to the edge of Europe if interim on that journey states were seen as more open.

We were certainly a soft touch back in the noughties, when just taking one group; Nigerians grew in population by 82% between 2000 and 2007(when the give birth here get residency loophole was plugged). The same people that if they tried to apply today would be face a rejection rate of nearly 100%.

80% still get to stay with leave to remain having a few babies ,marriage etc .

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

+1

Ireland has the lowest rate of rejection for asylum seekers in the EU.

The Irish authorities had the lowest rate of refusal to applications from asylum seekers of any of the EU’s 28 member states last year.

Only 15% of first-time decisions on asylum applications in Ireland were rejected, compared to an EU average of 63%.

And of those applicants the numbers break down like this(2018 figures). Those from places like Nigeria. Albania and Georgia are overwhelmingly rejected as chancers, though on appeal some get through. That's before we consider the numbers who showed up here before the having a kid here loophole was closed. Most of whom were from countries we now reject the vast majority of the time. Sadly that horse has long bolted and we'll be dealing with that BS for generations. Note that those actual refugees from actual warzones like Syria are almost never rejected.

We're a soft touch in this game and the numbers back this up. Elsewhere in the EU 63% are told to head off, in Ireland it's 15%. But no, we're apparently racist bastards who should wear sackcloth and ashes. Go away to hell.

so the poster who stated that the vast majority of aylum seekers in Irelnad are bogus, was either mistaken or lying?

15% is not a majority.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Of Syrians we essentially rejected none of them, whereas rejection rates around the EU for Syrians were higher. We were seen as a soft touch by the chancers, otherwise they wouldn't be travelling to the edge of Europe if interim on that journey states were seen as more open.
.

Syrians are refugees.
The majority of Syrian Refugees have been brought to Ireland from Refugee camps in Lebanon, Greece and Jordan. How would we reject refugees?

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

Of Syrians we essentially rejected none of them, whereas rejection rates around the EU for Syrians were higher.

That is because they had their applications processed in the camps.

Plenty were "rejected" or not even looked at. We basically cherry picked the ones we took.

We have barely taken half what we signed up to.

Ireland takes in a minute fraction of refugees.

It is well and truly the time certain people stopped blaming the fordiners for their own failings.

It's been done to death on here, it's been absolutely binned again by the electorate.

And like I said it's just fúcking boring at this stage.