Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

The fact that the government said they expect 90% of such intakes to be successful. Presumably they've factored in that some will be from different countries.
They're hardly going to assume that every refugee is where they say they're from.

I don't believe they're done much factoring themselves.
They seem to be going along with “The expectation across Europe” is that some 90% will qualify as refugees.
Which is why I'm looking for links as to the source of this expectation.

Ah now. It's a fairly safe bet that the government will be more diligent than automatically accepting wherever asylum seekers say they're from.
Are you honestly trying to argue otherwise? If they did this, we'd have a much more liberal asylum regime than we currently do.

I'm not making assumptions about our Governments behaviour.
That's why I'm looking for links to find out more detail.
If you're seeing arguments in that they're your own creation.

Greece and Hungary mainly. Makes sense, seeing as these are where the refugees are ending up.
Source
Makes sense really as the EU plan is to redistribute those from Greece, Italy and Hungary

Thanks for that link.
It seems the European Commission is going to be running the show.
Whilst liaising with a representative from our country.

You said you were asking why this was relevent. If you're going to bring in the German interior ministry, it seems unlikely when one of their own sources (for their vague and unverifiable estimate) is Frontex. Who'se own sources show a significant plurality are Syrian.
I'm not really sure what your point is here.

"Doubtful. Self-declared is a possibility but I can't see why refugees would bother lying to the UNHCR."
This is the bit that I was wondering about.
I have no idea why you included this.

Nodin wrote: »

Are you implying that no refugees will work?

You are aware that stating that Refugees will not work would most certainly be speculation?

I never said that they would not work but they have a lower employment level than natives.

http://www.unhcr.org/5273a9e89.pdf

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/refugees-face-barriers-getting-jobs-to-match-skills-survey-1.1135122

http://rise-project.eu/analysis/

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I don't believe they're done much factoring themselves.
They seem to be going along with “The expectation across Europe” is that some 90% will qualify as refugees.
Which is why I'm looking for links as to the source of this expectation.

Dunno, but seeing as around 93% (between Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis) will be successful, and the government will almost certainly conduct pre-checks on them beforehand, 90% would be a conservative estimate if they don't account for some cases of mistaken nationality. These would be easy enough to check anyway. It's not like a Kosovar could easily pose as an Arab. Although such people are unlikely to be languishing in Greece right now anyway.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm not making assumptions about our Governments behaviour.
That's why I'm looking for links to find out more detail.
If you're seeing arguments in that they're your own creation.

It's a government body which routinely deals with immigration and asylum cases. It's a very safe bet they'll be used to this and use appropriate safeguards and preliminary checks. It's not exactly a long stretch to think this.
If you want more info on how the government will conduct this, maybe contact INES?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

"Doubtful. Self-declared is a possibility but I can't see why refugees would bother lying to the UNHCR."
This is the bit that I was wondering about.
I have no idea why you included this.

While some refugees might be lying about their nationality, it's unclear why they'd bother doing so to the UNHCR which has no authority to grant asylum. As such, the UNHCR figure of 54% being Syrian is an interesting one.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Nonsense. You've totally ignored the points I made.

The Kurds in Iraq have more in common with the Kurds in Syria than they do with other Iraqis

Same goes for the sunnis and shi'tes in both countries.

If you are going to refute my claim then at least show some proof. As I said the French and British drew a fake border line about 100 years ago. Have you looked at the Iraqi/Syria border?

I guess its like saying people from Louth and Armagh speak distinctly different dialects of English and have nothing in common

What a load of nonsense.

They might have some similarities (like an Irishman raised in Germany and an Irishman raised in Ireland might have) but you're adopting an extremely orientalist approach to the Middle East.

The Arabs are an extremely divided people who are often more comfortable with nationalism than pan-Arabism: Iraq and Egypt especially. The countries might have only existed recently but regionalism and differing concepts of identities have existed for decades, especially in a system as decentralised as the Ottoman Empire.

Ditto for the Kurds really. It's fascinating when people assume Iranian Kurds are like Iraqi Kurds even though they spent as much time fighting with each other as with their respective governments.

gobsh!te wrote: »

Yes that's right, the Mesopotamians drew that straight line between the two countries.

Bravo. Well played sir

In your rush for a sarcastic rebuttal you seemed to have missed the point; the poster is you are implying that because the two countries, as they exist now, were demarcated 100 years ago it means the inhabitants will have a lot of similarities. I, and others, are pointing out that this idea is problematic.

Martial9 wrote: »

Once you meet the criteria set out by migrationsverket you then get an AT-UND. Very few are issued and Sweden has the highest non EU unemployment rate of all the 28 member states at 50%. The Swedish migration model is the worst in the EU. In a continent with a huge immigration mess on its hands, that is saying something. The Swedish model is not something we should be even thinking of replicating.

I'm not sure what your point is here: I never said we should adopt Sweden's asylum policies. I highlighted that we're one of only two EU countries which do not permit asylum seekers to work.
As for you claims here those are hardly very onerous conditions. Have you any sources that prove "hardly any" work permits are granted in Sweden?

Martial9 wrote: »

The reason why so many people are stuck in direct provision is because their claims for asylum are 'cock and bull'. We should looking at mechanisms to deport them quicker, not giving them access to our labour market.

Eh, no. See below.
Please produce evidence for your claims that people are stuck in asylum due to so many having "cock and bull" applications.

Martial9 wrote: »

You do not seem to like posting links so I will post one for the case.


Reasoning & Decision

http://emn.ie/cat_search_detail.jsp?clog=6&itemID=436&item_name=

You gotta be kidding me...
I referred to the Supreme Court decision. You've just pulled out the High Court ruling. Surely you know that the Supreme Court hears cases on appeals from the High Court? Why would you bother producing a superseded decision?
Here's the Supreme Court ruling here

It had, the Court considered, to be taken into account that part of the problem giving rise to the risk of disruption of family life stems from the highly complicated structure of the statutory regime in respect of applications for asylum, subsidiary protection and permission to remain in the State on other grounds, with the consequent prolongation of the process

If you'd been reading through this thread, you'd see I've been fairly consistent in producing evidence. In this case, I was operating under the assumption that people could easily find terms like "Okunade case" easily by themselves. So no, I dunno why you're accusing me of being adverse to posting links.

gobsh!te wrote: »

That's nice...I provided a reasons and facts as to why it would not be difficult for an Iraqi to pretend he or she was a Syrian to a European.

You have provided your opinion.

Again, well played sir

Your reasons and facts are just your opinion, one which seems ill informed/understood. Just because the border was drawn by colonialists 100 years ago does not mean the inhabitants were 'all the same' prior to that. As Lockstep pointed out earlier, your line of thinking is very Orientalist in that you don't seem to view Arabs/inhabitants of the Middle East generally as anything but a collective mass of similar people.

gobsh!te wrote: »

That's nice...I provided a reasons and facts as to why it would not be difficult for an Iraqi to pretend he or she was a Syrian to a European.

You have provided your opinion.

Again, well played sir

I could say I was from Grimsby in England but a few questions would find me out pretty sharpish.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

90% of asylum seekers being refugees would be a very high number, that's why I'm questioning it.
Looking at the most recent quarterly Eurostat figures, Syria and Eritrea have a 73% and a 69% first time refugee status success rate respectively.
So they're either conflating refugee status and subsidiary protection to get that number or they are using a selection system to give that high a number.
The former inspiring my lack of confidence in them.

Are we looking at the same Eurostat? The one I'm seeing clearly shows that in addition to the 73% of Syrians and 69% of Eritreans granted first instance refugee status, 22% of Syrians and 13% of Eritreans are granted first instance subsidiary protection (and 2% of Eritreans are granted humanitarian leave). So that's 95% of Syrians and 84% of Eritreans. As I highlighted here
The Eurostat figures for Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans combined, means they will have a collective success rate of 93% in the first instance.
They won't be many appealing decisions as the overwhelming majority will be granted asylum in the first instance. This is in addition to the fact the government will almost certainly be engaging in some preliminary work before bringing them to Ireland.

So yeah, the source you're using clearly shows that 73% is not including those granted subsidiary protection. It's the blue part of the pie charts? Are you genuinely not seeing them?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I'm questioning why you made that comment in that particular strain of conversation.
I never claimed in that strain of conversation that the refugees were lying.
It looks like you're either replying to something I didn't say or bringing points from different conversation strains into other conversations.

Ok, so what exactly is the issue here? You brought up claims that up to 30% of asylum seekers are claiming to be Syrians (based on unverifiable estimates). Seeing as this is apparently based on Frontex estimates, but Frontex estimates are that 42% of arrivals are Syrian. Just 10% off (at the time) of estimates by the UNHCR for Syrian refugee numbers.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

A similar situation happened in this post.

What's your issue with this post? You highlighted that only 73% of Syrians would be granted asylum. This ignores that 22% will be granted subsidiary protection. Only 5% would be ineligible. If we ran a decent asylum system, we could process those granted refugee status and those granted subsidiary protection at the same time

Lockstep wrote: »

Are we looking at the same Eurostat? The one I'm seeing clearly shows that in addition to the 73% of Syrians and 69% of Eritreans granted first instance refugee status, 22% of Syrians and 13% of Eritreans are granted first instance subsidiary protection (and 2% of Eritreans are granted humanitarian leave). So that's 95% of Syrians and 84% of Eritreans. As I highlighted here
The Eurostat figures for Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans combined, means they will have a collective success rate of 93% in the first instance.
They won't be many appealing decisions as the overwhelming majority will be granted asylum in the first instance. This is in addition to the fact the government will almost certainly be engaging in some preliminary work before bringing them to Ireland.

So yeah, the source you're using clearly shows that 73% is not including those granted subsidiary protection. It's the blue part of the pie charts? Are you genuinely not seeing them?

There's no addition.
I'm purely talking about refugee status, if you're bringing in subsidiary protection you've made a wrong turn.
Why are the Irish Government expecting a figure as high as 90% when the EU-28 seems to be averaging 73%?

They won't be many appealing decisions as the overwhelming majority will be granted asylum in the first instance. This is in addition to the fact the government will almost certainly be engaging in some preliminary work before bringing them to Ireland.

Just to deal with the point separately and copying some info from post #577.

Hypothetically if all the 3500 asylum seekers are Syrian, and using Q2 2015 EU-28 figures.

73% will be granted refugee status.
27% will be denied refugee status.
5% will be denied both refugee status and Subsidiary Protection.

So that's 175 who will most likely appeal their refugee status decision.
And a further 770 who are highly likely to decide to appeal their initial decision to the RAT and possibly beyond.
As it makes sense to exhaust the Refugee track before continuing down the subsidiary protection path.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

There's no addition.
I'm purely talking about refugee status, if you're bringing in subsidiary protection you've made a wrong turn.
Why are the Irish Government expecting a figure as high as 90% when the EU-28 seems to be averaging 73%?

Yes, there is addition. The entire point of subsidiary protection is to grant asylum for those who are in real and persistent danger but who do not necessarily fulfill the strict criteria for being refugee. Whether it's refugee status or subsidiary protection, both cases involve someone being granted asylum because of the danger posed to them.
If the Irish government brings in Syrians, it looks like 95% of them will be granted asylum in the first instance. So using your figures above, only 175 would be expected to be denied asylum at the first instance. Presumably, some of these will be successful on appeal as well.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Just to deal with the point separately and copying some info from post #577.

Hypothetically if all the 3500 asylum seekers are Syrian, and using Q2 2015 EU-28 figures.

73% will be granted refugee status.
27% will be denied refugee status.
5% will be denied both refugee status and Subsidiary Protection.

So that's 175 who will most likely appeal their refugee status decision.
And a further 770 who are highly likely to decide to appeal their initial decision to the RAT and possibly beyond.
As it makes sense to exhaust the Refugee track before continuing down the subsidiary protection path.

Why would 770 appeal their decision if they've been granted subsidiary protection? They have the right to work on the same grounds as Irish citizens,

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Here's another example.


In a conversation that is specifically centred on the details of where the government got a 90% figure, you're brining details that aren't relevant.
To make a point that I've already addressed in a previous post.
I'm not having a go at you, it's just I don't understand why you're bringing in these details.
I'll leave it at that as I don't want to be going further off-topic.

I'm not sure why you think they aren't relevent. I'm not sure how else I can break it down except for as follows. Apologies if it seems patronising but I'm not sure how else to put it.

• You used the German interior spokesman's estimates to claim that up to 30% of those claiming to be Syrian, would not be Syrian and thus far less likely to be granted asylum
• I highlighted that Frontex's own estimates (which the German Interior Ministry's estimates are supposedly based on) show that 42% of arrivals are Syrian
• The UNHCR data shows that 54% are Syrian. Evidently, a very high number of incoming refugees are Syrian.
• It is of course, possible that some of these refugees are lying about being Syrian but it does highlight the high volume of Syrians arriving
• Even if they were lying, they're not as likely to do so to the UNHCR as what's the point? The UNHCR can't help them with their claims so they've little to gain by pretending to be Syrian to them. Sure it might happen but it's hardly very likely
• Now, the government's estimate for success is 90%. Given that 93% of the three relevant nationalities are successfully claiming asylum in the first instance, and given Ireland is almost certainly going to be conducting preliminary checks on incoming refugees to Ireland, 90% would be a conservative estimate.

Lockstep wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think they aren't relevent. I'm not sure how else I can break it down except for as follows. Apologies if it seems patronising but I'm not sure how else to put it.

• You used the German interior spokesman's estimates to claim that up to 30% of those claiming to be Syrian, would not be Syrian and thus far less likely to be granted asylum
• I highlighted that Frontex's own estimates (which the German Interior Ministry's estimates are supposedly based on) show that 42% of arrivals are Syrian
• The UNHCR data shows that 54% are Syrian. Evidently, a very high number of incoming refugees are Syrian.
• It is of course, possible that some of these refugees are lying about being Syrian but it does highlight the high volume of Syrians arriving
• Even if they were lying, they're not as likely to do so to the UNHCR as what's the point? The UNHCR can't help them with their claims so they've little to gain by pretending to be Syrian to them. Sure it might happen but it's hardly very likely
• Now, the government's estimate for success is 90%. Given that 93% of the three relevant nationalities are successfully claiming asylum in the first instance, and given Ireland is almost certainly going to be conducting preliminary checks on incoming refugees to Ireland, 90% would be a conservative estimate.

Let me make it clear, I understand the points you're trying to make, but don't necessarily agree with them.
It's just the conversation moved on, or I stopped discussing a particular point, but you still kept bringing up this information up in other conversations where it wasn't relevant.

You've repeatedly tried to bring subsidiary protection into a conversation that is only dealing with refugee status.

gobsh!te wrote: »

So you disagree on what I said about the Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis and Christians in both counties and both countries speaking Arabic mostly?

I never said anything like that.

I can't really go anywhere on that then because those are facts.

If you disagree with facts....What do you argue with? Only your opinion?

I find facts tend to be more reliable.

Constantly rehashing this 'argument' is about as effect as repeatedly saying "well played". Despite your fixation with what you perceive to be valid arguments you seem intent on ignoring what I am actually saying to you.