Sinn Fein end Direct Provision

weldoninhio

TheBoyConor wrote: »

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.

And they are free to come and go as they please.

rgossip30

rgossip30 wrote: »

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

this is what I asked you to explain.
post doesn't make sense

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

you yourself said the rejection rate was 15%
so, are you changing your mind now?

enricoh

TheBoyConor wrote: »

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.

An impenetrable Laurel hedge- good jaysus we're really clutching at straws now - a concentration camp is what it is! U could get a job writing about the horrors of direct provision with the journal!
Why don't they just walk in and out the gate?

RandomName2

Captain Red Beard wrote: »

They don't.

As your duly elected representative I went to talk to an RA spokesperson (who I shall not name), and they replied that their proposed solution to the issues brought before them was 'Change. Change change. Change. Change change change.'

jmayo

Never mind the fooking asylum seekers.

There are more pressing concerns, how do I log a missing person report.

This thread has been going all day about asylum seekers and Alastair is nowhere to be seen.

Surely that is of concern.

Have you shower no concern for your fellow man/woman/"whatever your feeling like today"?

Shame on the lot of ye.

CrankyHaus

Geuze wrote: »

OK, thanks.

How many appeals should be allowed?

That's a good question. A balance has to be struck between the rights of the asylum seeker and the public policy considerations of avoiding the slow, dysfunctional, expensive gravy train for the legal professions that currently calls itself an asylum process.



As a starting point I'd advocate the Government recognising the faults of the current system and having it reviewed; in a clear eyed manner with reference to other countries' best practice and in terms that are not merely dictated to it by the Asylum Industry.

Lonesomerhodes

jmayo wrote: »

Never mind the fooking asylum seekers.

There are more pressing concerns, how do I log a missing person report.

This thread has been going all day about asylum seekers and Alastair is nowhere to be seen.

Surely that is of concern.

Have you shower no concern for your fellow man/woman/"whatever your feeling like today"?

Shame on the lot of ye.

That time of the month cranky arse?.

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

you yourself said the rejection rate was 15%
so, are you changing your mind now?

No. I linked to a source that said 15%. So after your run of "so you're saying the majority are bogus", now that I've shown with official Irish government dept stats that they feel they are, I note you're changing tack yet again. So straight question for you: are the majority of applicants from certain nations rejected? Yes or No? If yes, then why? Is it because they're bogus? *waits for penny to drop*

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

No. I linked to a source that said 15%. So after your run of "so you're saying the majority are bogus", now that I've shown with official Irish government dept stats that they feel they are, I note you're changing tack yet again. So straight question for you: are the majority of applicants from certain nations rejected? Yes or No? If yes, then why? Is it because they're bogus? *waits for penny to drop*

I have no issue with facts.
clearly the majority of asylum seekers from some countries are rejected.
but that is not what the poster claimed. If that was what he said, I wouldn't have any issue with it.
But I believe he was just stating lies.

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

I have no issue with facts.
clearly the majority of asylum seekers from some countries are rejected.
but that is not what the poster claimed. If that was what he said, I wouldn't have any issue with it.
But I believe he was just stating lies.

Jesus, at least try and state which bloody poster you're referring to. Surely you know? You're all over the place and it doesn't exactly help your case.

Oh and the majority of asylum seekers from most countries are rejected. Thank Christ. So OK, the majority of so called asylum seekers appear to be bogus. Glad we sorted that out.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

Also, let's not forget that the overwhelming vast majority of asylum seekers are bogus,.

here ya go

rgossip30

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus, at least try and state which bloody poster you're referring to. Surely you know? You're all over the place and it doesn't exactly help your case.

Oh and the majority of asylum seekers from most countries are rejected. Thank Christ. So OK, the majority of so called asylum seekers appear to be bogus. Glad we sorted that out.

I think he referred to me . I gave up trying to explain your post to him :rolleyes:

Blaze420

Of course the majority of them are bogus - asylum should be claimed in the first safe country. How do they manage to pass through multiple safe countries but still end up here with their hands out?

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

here ya go

And the poster is correct going on official government statistics.

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.

and here is where you state we are a soft touch & reject 15% of asylum seekers

Kivaro

Wibbs wrote: »

And the poster is correct going on official government statistics.

Indeed I am, and those statistics are readily available for all to see.
The mental gymnastics of the poster you keep responding to is why I have him on the ignore list for some time.

Even when Leo Varadkar highlighted the bogus asylum seekers from Georgia and Albania as the "big driver" behind our country's problems in housing asylum seekers, the remarks were branded by the usual crowd as "gas lighting and dangerous".

This is the mindset that rational people are up against.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

Indeed I am, and those statistics are readily available for all to see.
The mental gymnastics of the poster you keep responding to is why I have him on the ignore list for some time.

Even when Leo Varadkar highlighted the bogus asylum seekers from Georgia and Albania as the "big driver" behind our country's problems in housing asylum seekers, the remarks were branded by the usual crowd as "gas lighting and dangerous".

This is the mindset that rational people are up against.

and yet when I asked for staistics, I was told 15 % of asylum seekers applications are rejected.

jucko

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.

its not the ritz, but the BMWs are there, i work beside it, find the folk grand, it is what it is, just people escaping THEIR PAST.
Whatever their reasons. Have you practical experience yourself with folk in DP?

jrosen

DP is appalling. There needs to be a faster process to deciding someones fate. You either meet the asylum criteria or you dont. If you dont, your out and if you do integration needs to starts asap.

The system isn't fair or right. If people want to come to Ireland to work and make a batter life for themselves and they have skills to offer that needs to be a quicker process.

Shapey Fiend

By end Direct Provision I assume they mean allowing asylum seekers to work. Vast majority would be out of these places and have found their own accommodation in weeks. Deporting the bogus 15% after the process is over could be tricky but sure there's no point in putting the 85% into limbo in the process.

Geuze

Kivaro wrote: »

Indeed I am, and those statistics are readily available for all to see.
The mental gymnastics of the poster you keep responding to is why I have him on the ignore list for some time.

Even when Leo Varadkar highlighted the bogus asylum seekers from Georgia and Albania as the "big driver" behind our country's problems in housing asylum seekers, the remarks were branded by the usual crowd as "gas lighting and dangerous".

This is the mindset that rational people are up against.

CORRECT 100%.

Even when you state the truth, you are accused of being racist or something else.

It's now nearly like you're scared to speak the truth.

Even when the Garda report on the scale of sham marriages involving bogus AS from Asia, still some people seem to think that AS are actually genuine.

The vast majority of AS are not fleeing persecution.

The vast majority of AS are bogus, they are pretending to be AS, but are really economic migrants.



Why can't the debate move onwards? Why must we spend so much time trying to establish the truth?

Why must so much time be spent trying to convince people of the truth?

Would we waste as much time trying to convince flat-earthers that the Earth is round?

We need to move onwards to:

how do we reduce the amount of bogus AS?
how do we process these claims faster?
How can deport much faster?

These will leave more space for genuine refugees, who are welcome.

Boggles

Kivaro wrote: »

This is the mindset that rational people are up against.

enricoh

Boggles wrote: »

No mention of the Albanian or Georgian scammers - quelle surprise!
Sure maybe Leo is irrational n a big bad racist to boot!!
How dare he turn them back at the airport - that's hampering the asylum spoofer industry's growth!

Boggles

enricoh wrote: »

No mention of the Albanian or Georgian scammers - quelle surprise!
Sure maybe Leo is irrational n a big bad racist to boot!!
How dare he turn them back at the airport - that's hampering the asylum spoofer industry's growth!

There was never a reason not to turn them back, They are from a "third country" (safe).

It was Fine Gael policy not to.

What that has got to do with a thread about SF's policy on direct provision certainly is a "quelle surprise".

James Brown

joseywhales wrote: »

Perhaps they will run out of ideas and just imprison innocent asylum seekers in an ironic twist.

Like the former FG candidates reeducation camps? Unlikely.

JohnnyFlash

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Like the former FG candidates reeducation camps? Unlikely.

Jesus, Matt, not everything is about FG. You’re like one of those plastic monkey’s playing the drum at this stage. Over and over and over again.

We’re out of office. Gone. In opposition. Time for others to sort these issues out.

James Brown

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Jesus, Matt, not everything is about FG. You’re like one of those plastic monkey’s playing the drum at this stage. Over and over and over again.

We’re out of office. Gone. In opposition. Time for others to sort these issues out.

Great non point off topic JF

tipptom

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.

FFS,and this was thanked by a mod.

You should be fu*king ashamed of yourselves and Boards should be ashamed letting this HATE FILLED RACISM stay up.

tipptom

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.

FFS,and this was thanked by a mod.

You should be ashamed of yourselves and Boards should be ashamed of themselves leaving this HATE FILLED RACISM up.