Sinn Fein end Direct Provision

rgossip30

bubblypop wrote: »

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.

90% 0f those who claim asylum apart from program Syrian refugees are failed asylum seekers . 80% of those failed one get to stay with Leave to Remain. Those with deportation orders can self deport .A small percentage are physically removed about 200 each year .

enricoh

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If SF went and ended Direct Provision, gave asylum to all and immediately housed them, their support would disintegrate within a month.

And 100000 more would arrive in the next 12 months!

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

90% 0f those who claim asylum apart from program Syrian refugees are failed asylum seekers . 80% of those failed one get to stay with Leave to Remain. Those with deportation orders can self deport .A small percentage are physically removed about 200 each year .

so, are the majority of asylum seekers bogus?
Obviously not, if they are allowed stay.
the amount of rejection according to a poster is 15%

so, not a majority then:rolleyes:

CrankyHaus

bubblypop wrote: »

so, are the majority of asylum seekers bogus?
Obviously not, if they are allowed stay.
the amount of rejection according to a poster is 15%

so, not a majority then:rolleyes:

This is disingenous.



Leave to Remain does not mean that an asylum seeker meets the requirement for refugee status.



In fact it means the opposite: having failed to meet the requirements for refugee status they spend years appealing the decision, judicially reviewing the appeal of the decision and then doing the same for any children they have had here during those years spent appealing and judicially reviewing, all at the taxpayers expense.



Typically leave to remain is granted on grounds such as keeping the family together or a minor failure of process in dealing with the initial asylum application or appeal rather than any recognition of a genuine application for refugee status.

rgossip30

bubblypop wrote: »

so, are the majority of asylum seekers bogus?
Obviously not, if they are allowed stay.
the amount of rejection according to a poster is 15%

so, not a majority then:rolleyes:

They fail the criteria to qualify for refugee status but get leave to remain for various reasons having children marriage etc .The overall rejection rate is 15 % .You need to prove they are not bogus in that case .Do you believe that all asylum seekers should be allowed to stay ?

Eric Cartman

rgossip30 wrote: »

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

Sensible answer : send them all the f*ck home to where they came from
SF probible answer : let them live among the general population and be happy and free to commit crime
Reality : theyre going nowhere.

enricoh

bubblypop wrote: »

so, are the majority of asylum seekers bogus?
Obviously not, if they are allowed stay.
the amount of rejection according to a poster is 15%

so, not a majority then:rolleyes:

Eh, it's called leave to remain- as Paddy hasn't the backbone to throw them out. They are bogus, but after a few years appeals etc the spoofers get rewarded with leave to remain- housed by the state and full welfare- great job!

Numbers seeking asylum were up 60% iirc in 2019 year on year. Hence all the protests in villages around the country with new centres.The joke is on Paddy taxpayer

This says there was 70% rejection in 2018 but for the life of me I can’t work out what figures they used to reach that percentage.

https://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/republic-ireland/statistics

Applicants in 2018. 3,673

Pending at end 2018 5,660

Refugee status 683

Subsidiary protection 200

Rejection 2,090

Refugee rate 23%

Subs. Prot. rate 6.73%

Rejection rate 70.3%

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

so, are the majority of asylum seekers bogus?
Obviously not, if they are allowed stay.
the amount of rejection according to a poster is 15%

so, not a majority then:rolleyes:

Me. Earlier: 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.

The vast majority of those from such origins are considered bogus enough to reject. Going by the published figures this also goes for those from Pakistan, Brazil, Algeria, Bangladesh, India, Ghana, China(even the US).

Oh and the top spot for the largest numbers applying? Albania. Then Georgia. Syrian's were in third place and were all accepted, as were those from places like Iran and Eritrea.

So to break it down for you: Of all the applications from various regions that aren't warzones and totalitarian states, the vast majority were indeed rejected, though some slid through on appeal.

rgossip30

enricoh wrote: »

Eh, it's called leave to remain- as Paddy hasn't the backbone to throw them out. They are bogus, but after a few years appeals etc the spoofers get rewarded with leave to remain- housed by the state and full welfare- great job!

Numbers seeking asylum were up 60% iirc in 2019 year on year. Hence all the protests in villages around the country with new centres.The joke is on Paddy taxpayer

And the fairy fools who think its all wonderful .Cead Mile Faulty .

Fr_Dougal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sensible answer : send them all the f*ck home to where they came from
SF probible answer : let them live among the general population and be happy and free to commit crime
Reality : theyre going nowhere.

If SF are planning on ending DP, they only way they’ll be able to do that is by offering these families homes.

Putting them in rental accommodation will probably work out better value to the exchequer. It’s a good initiative.

Eric Cartman

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If SF are planning on ending DP, they only way they’ll be able to do that is by offering these families homes.

Putting them in rental accommodation will probably work out better value to the exchequer. It’s a good initiative.

Until it proves almost impossible to police them , enforce the inevitible deportations required and they cant support the house due to a lack of income.

Plus realistically expecting ordinary citizens to live next to people who are not legally here, have not been properly screened and who cannot work is bound to end in disaster.

TheBoyConor

Times change but the attitude of the irish to people that are deemed a burder or in some how undesirable never really seems to change. And that attitude is to hide those people away behind big walls and cutting off contact with the outside world so that we on the outside can pretend that they don't exist and we can carry on and keep up the appearances of a perfect society while we ignore what happens behind these walls and fences and pretend they don't exist.


In the 1950s poor children and delinquents were packed off to industrial schools and beaten asunder by christian brothers and their like. When a bit older they were hired out to industries and farmers as unpaid labourers. My mother told me of a time when her brother was, for some reason, on a farm and he came across a boy from one of the industrial schools tied up with a chain around his leg in a shed. He freed the boy and he ran off and escaped.

People with disabilities, mental health issues or just for being a bit eccentric were committed and shipped of behind the walls of mental asylums never to be really ever seen or heard from again. Experimented on with surgeries and drugs in many instances.

In rural Ireland, there was a particularly cruel streak where some ruthless family members would arrange for a bachelor uncle or perhaps a quieter or "different" brother to be taken away by the white coats so that they would be kept out of an inheritance of land.

This all usually happened with the connivance of the local doctor and Guard, and probably the priest as well. No-one would ever dare doubt or question any of those three back in those days lest they themselves ended up being shipped off behind the asylum walls.

My mother told me that in her day she remembers children with downs syndrome or other disabilities being sent away to the asylums and the family would even deny their very existence, perhaps saying that the baby was stillborn or died.

Same with the Magdalene laundries. As we all know, in those days a pregnancy out of wedlock and even being know to be involved in premarital relations was a major no-no and brought shame on the family. Again, a lot of it came back to risking land and inheritances. girls, found to be so involved were packed off to the laundries and were rarely ever claimed back out. Shockingly, a girl could be landed in a Magdalene laundry for being too good looking or outgoing and flirty. Many spent the rest of their days there. We have heard of the horrors of "good" babies being sold to the highest American bidders and the sickly or disabled being simply allowed to die and then discarded into septic tanks and pits.

Whats more the state never did this directly, they always outsourced these incarceration programs out to third parties such as the religious orders and DP companies so that they are at arms length and don't get their own hands dirty. They can always blame the third party when things go pear shaped.
In the same area and until relatively recently.

The exact same things is happening today with the direct provision centers. Asylum seekers are considered a burden and not really desirable. they are not allowed integrate into society. Instead, they are largely confined to direct provision centers, herded behind the walls and fences where, what goes on in there, we really don't know much about. Perhaps like the industrial schools, mental asylums and Magdalene laundries it will be 20 or 30 years before the reality of what is now happening in direct provision centers will be known.

rgossip30

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If SF are planning on ending DP, they only way they’ll be able to do that is by offering these families homes.

Putting them in rental accommodation will probably work out better value to the exchequer. It’s a good initiative.

We can follow the Swedish model it wont be good it will be great .

rgossip30

The exact same things is happening today with the direct provision centers. Asylum seekers are considered a burden and not really desirable. they are not allowed integrate into society. Instead, they are largely confined to direct provision centers, herded behind the walls and fences where, what goes on in there, we really don't know much about. Perhaps like the industrial schools, mental asylums and Magdalene laundries it will be 20 or 30 years before the reality of what is now happening in direct provision centers will be known.[/QUOTE]

Most asylum seekers are given a decision in a few years some earler . They can work after 9 months . There are no walls and fences and they can come and go even stay with relatives .

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

.The overall rejection rate is 15 % .

so, not the majority then!

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Me. Earlier: 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.

The vast majority of those from such origins are considered bogus enough to reject. Going by the published figures this also goes for those from Pakistan, Brazil, Algeria, Bangladesh, India, Ghana, China(even the US).

Oh and the top spot for the largest numbers applying? Albania. Then Georgia. Syrian's were in third place and were all accepted, as were those from places like Iran and Eritrea.

So to break it down for you: Of all the applications from various regions that aren't warzones and totalitarian states, the vast majority were indeed rejected, though some slid through on appeal.

so, not what the poster said when he stated 'the majority of asylum seekers are bogus'

rgossip30

bubblypop wrote: »

so, not the majority then!

More to the point those rejected for refugee status should be deported which is 90% .
The majority should be deported is that plain enough .

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

More to the point those rejected for refugee status should be deported which is 90% .

you will have to explain this?
the percentage of rejected asylum seekers is 15 % according to Wibbs

rgossip30

bubblypop wrote: »

you will have to explain this?
the percentage of rejected asylum seekers is 15 % according to Wibbs

ask wibbs

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

ask wibbs

ask Wibbs to explain your post?
any reason you cannot explain it yourself?

Geuze

rgossip30 wrote: »

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

Hopefully process the claims fast, in ports and airports, within 7 days max?

Build temp accomm in the airport to house claimants for a week max, then deport after claim has been processed?

Geuze

If claims were processed very fast, then Leave to Remain would not have to be used.

rgossip30

bubblypop wrote: »

ask Wibbs to explain your post?
any reason you cannot explain it yourself?

You seem deliberately incapable of understanding . Wibbs said it was 15 % rejection not me .

CrankyHaus

Geuze wrote: »

If claims were processed very fast, then Leave to Remain would not have to be used.

Claims are processed reasonably quickly. The interminable litany of appeals of the decision, Judicial review of the appeals and then repeating it all for each child is what causes the process to take years.

Geuze

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Claims are processed reasonably quickly. The interminable litany of appeals of the decision, Judicial review of the appeals and then repeating it all for each child is what causes the process to take years.

OK, thanks.

How many appeals should be allowed?

Blaze420

The only thing they need to end is the circumvention of the established rules about claiming asylum.

We are an Island on the west of Europe and should genuinely not be receiving any asylum seekers here - the majority should be deported within 24 hours of arriving here.

TheBoyConor

Most asylum seekers are given a decision in a few years some earler . They can work after 9 months . There are no walls and fences and they can come and go even stay with relatives

There are walls and fences at most of them. Here in cork it is surrounded by a steel palisade fence which has since had a tall, impenetrable laurel hedge grow up around it. And a palisade gate with a security hut and barrier. You'd not even know there was a centre there if you passed.

weldoninhio

Geuze wrote: »

OK, thanks.

How many appeals should be allowed?

There should be none, except on a point of law.

Edit: Actually, perhaps one, where the points of the case are reviewed, to rule out human error.

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

so, not what the poster said when he stated 'the majority of asylum seekers are bogus'

As well as appearing to have some difficulty with the written word, you also appear to have some difficulty with basic mathematics. Look again and actually read this link of the official figures. Not what you appear to want to read Syria is one of the tiny number of origin nations that has a 100% acceptance rate. The vast majority of others from elsewhere are rejected. Even after appeals outside of one or two where half are accepted, the majority are still rejected.

So why are they rejected? Clearly those in the relevant departments consider them bogus enough to be rejected. Ergo the majority of those seeking asylum in Ireland are considered bogus applications. QED.