Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Asylum seeker to get college fees paid for by Department of Education.

Options
1…2627282931

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Very interesting you're taking the approach of "guilty until proven innocent" here. :pac:

    Each case is different, and until we hear where in the process she and her family are by an official source, every conclusion drawn is worthless fiction.

    How will we hear ?


  • Options
    #903
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    EazyD wrote: »
    Ok, if they are not economic migrants what are they exactly?

    No idea. Could have thought they had grounds for asylum but don't, could be anything. Certainly if they were economic migrants there are far better and easier economies in the world to access than this one.


  • Options
    #904
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Nodin wrote: »
    No idea. Could have thought they had grounds for asylum but don't, could be anything. Certainly if they were economic migrants there are far better and easier economies in the world to access than this one.

    Yet people try looking at the Asylum statistics.


  • Options
    #905
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Yet people try looking at the Asylum statistics.

    ?


  • Options
    #906
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Nodin wrote: »
    ?

    :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,238 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    petrolcan wrote: »
    But that wasn't racist.
    You don't think ascribing inherent characteristics to a race is racist???


  • Options
    #908
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    You don't think ascribing inherent characteristics to a race is racist???

    By other White Europeans ?


  • Options
    #909
    petrolcan
    Registered Users Posts: 898 ✭✭✭petrolcan


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    You don't think ascribing inherent characteristics to a race is racist???

    And what race were the characteristics being ascribed to?

    Before you answer, the Irish are not a race.


  • Options
    #910
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    petrolcan wrote: »
    And what race were the characteristics being ascribed to?

    Before you answer, the Irish are not a race.

    In SJW PC land they are.


  • Options
    #911
    petrolcan
    Registered Users Posts: 898 ✭✭✭petrolcan


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    In SJW PC land they are.

    No doubt that many believe that I live in that land.

    The Irish are still not a race.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #912
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,238 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    By other White Europeans ?
    The race of the person making the comments is irrelevant.
    petrolcan wrote: »
    And what race were the characteristics being ascribed to?

    Before you answer, the Irish are not a race.
    From the charter.
    No Racism
    Zero tolerance will be shown to posts containing racism or discrimination. This includes the travelling community. Please do not use this forum to incite hatred.
    According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.
    An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness


  • Options
    #913
    umop apisdn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭umop apisdn


    There's a lot of work shy racists on this thread afraid of any ungreedy hard workers being let into this country.
    As an employer, the wages ordinary Irish employees expect are shocking. Time for some competition.


  • Options
    #914
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Re: pending appeals

    It is patently ridiculous to claim that an appellant who has an appeal pending has no stateable claim.

    If that were the case, we might as well eradicate the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court altogether, and any other court that has overturned or remitted the determination of a tribunal.

    As much as I believe there is widespread abuse of the asylum process, the idea that you can just dispense with aspects of the constitution is entirely wild and does not even deserve the attention of serious people.


  • Options
    #915
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Re: pending appeals

    It is patently ridiculous to claim that an appellant who has an appeal pending has no stateable claim.

    If that were the case, we might as well eradicate the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court altogether, and any other court that has overturned or remitted the determination of a tribunal.

    As much as I believe there is widespread abuse of the asylum process, the idea that you can just dispense with aspects of the constitution is entirely wild and does not even deserve the attention of serious people.

    Got a link to the part dealing with Asylum seekers ? Does the constitution not deal with citizens only ?


  • Options
    #916
    petrolcan
    Registered Users Posts: 898 ✭✭✭petrolcan


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    The race of the person making the comments is irrelevant.


    From the charter.

    Yeah, read all that.

    So, what race were the characteristics being ascribed to?


  • Options
    #917
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    ... Does the constitution not deal with citizens only ?
    That's a daft idea, akin to suggesting that laws don't apply to immigrants or tourists.


  • Options
    #918
    RichardCeann
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 647 ✭✭✭RichardCeann


    We know that over 90% of asylum applications received annually are deemed to be unfounded. We know that the median processing time to a final decision by the Minister on an asylum application in 2013 to include the appeals process in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was 36 weeks. She has been here for over two years.

    Yet people are acting all shocked and appalled at the suggestion that the family are less than genuine and that they have been rejected at least twice, when in all probability, the likelihood of both being true is extremely high.


  • Options
    #919
    Maguined
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Nodin wrote: »
    But she is legally in the country as is, so they don't have to wait on any decision. For somebody who likes to throw the terminology of logic about, you don't seem to employ much of it.



    ...which does not mean that those rejected are economic migrants.

    I never said they had to wait, I said it was short sighted to make the decision when her legal status is more likely to change to deportation than it is to be granted asylum. My point is completely logical, it is weighing up the odds and saying the odds are heavily against this woman being allowed to legally stay in the country and benefit from the RCSI's generosity.

    It would be more logical if the RCSI created this extra space, waived the fees and paid for the accomodation of a student that is more likely to remain within the country than to leve. Point out what is illogical about that statement? I don't expect you to respond however as you love to demand answers from other posters while rarely responding to question directly put to you.

    What is your definition of an economic migrant then? If an individuals experiences are not judged to warrant asylum, they did not get a work via and entered a country what is their status then?
    Billy86 wrote: »
    Well yeah, they are all valid points. Though at that point if it came to it shevcould likely do something about a transfer to a Ukrainian university or what not,with RCSI writing it off as a good deed. Still benefits her, and like you said it's their money to lose if that's how the whole thing winds up.

    Again I am not disputing their right to do so but I would believe giving the benefits to another student far more likely to complete the course and contribute to society would of been an even greater deed.

    Another poster in this thread mentioned their own daughter getting 565 points but they are worried they cannot afford to pay for college, if the RCSI offered this extra space to this student it is far more likely that student would not be deported and complete their studies. However as there is no media campaign, no politician involved it just gets ignored.


  • Options
    #920
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Maguined wrote: »
    ... I said it was short sighted to make the decision when her legal status is more likely to change to deportation than it is to be granted asylum....
    We don't know the probabilities in any particular case. I think we can all agree that there is a possibility that her application will fail.

    Should RCSI base their decisions on that? Should they shrug their shoulders and say "Well, she's probably going to be deported in the next year or two, so we are not interested in her welfare"? That would be taking a prejudicial stance. Right now, the family are here legally, albeit conditionally and with uncertain prospects of being allowed to remain.

    Should the family be refused refugee status and be deported, I would imagine that Anna might be granted a student visa of some sort.


  • Options
    #921
    Maguined
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    We don't know the probabilities in any particular case. I think we can all agree that there is a possibility that her application will fail.

    Should RCSI base their decisions on that? Should they shrug their shoulders and say "Well, she's probably going to be deported in the next year or two, so we are not interested in her welfare"? That would be taking a prejudicial stance. Right now, the family are here legally, albeit conditionally and with uncertain prospects of being allowed to remain.

    Should the family be refused refugee status and be deported, I would imagine that Anna might be granted a student visa of some sort.

    Probabilities in the particular case? you don't need to know the probabilities of the specific case to determine the probability based on an entire previous set. From the stats that was posted up previously 8,392 cases had their asylum rejected, of these 166 cases were sucessfully appealed and 288 cases were settled, lets be generous and assume all these settled cases actually counted as successfully appealed. That meanst 454 cases out of 8,392 were appealed meaning the odds of a successful appeal are 6% (more generous rounding on my part).

    Since the RCSI are able to create an extra slot on the course and waive fees and pay for accomodation would it not make more logical and reasonable sense for the RCSI to give this extra slot to a student who has a greater than 6% chance of remaining in the country?

    Since you like those odds if you give me 100 euro I promise you there is a 6% chance I will then donate 1,000 euro of my own money to any student charity you want but there is a 94% chance I will keep your 100 euro. Want to take me up on this offer since you find these odds perfectly reasonable?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #922
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Maguined wrote: »
    Probabilities in the particular case? you don't need to know the probabilities of the specific case to determine the probability based on an entire previous set....
    Following that line of reasoning, if, say, 87% of people charged with murder were found guilty, then it would be efficient to deem all of those charged to be guilty on probability.


  • Options
    #923
    RichardCeann
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 647 ✭✭✭RichardCeann


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Following that line of reasoning, if, say, 87% of people charged with murder were found guilty, then it would be efficient to deem all of those charged to be guilty on probability.

    Take him up on his bet then. You are getting nice odds.


  • Options
    #924
    Maguined
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Following that line of reasoning, if, say, 87% of people charged with murder were found guilty, then it would be efficient to deem all of those charged to be guilty on probability.

    Guilt of a crime is a bit different than who gets a slot on a course or not. It's not like the courts only have limited Guilty slots they can use up. There is a consequence for convicting someone of a crime they didn't commit.

    There is no consequence for an extra slot on a course. It is not like the RCSI either have the choice to create this extra slot specifically for Anna and no one else. If they can create this slot they can award it to anyone so can you not see how convicting an innocent person of a crime has a direct negative consequence as opposed to giving the college space to a different student who has a greater than 6% chance of staying in the country and benefitting from the course?

    So is that a yes or a no to my bet? I don't understand why you would not want to take me up on it when you find those odds completely reasonable and 100 euro is surely not that much for you to gamble on the benefit 1,000 would offer surely?


  • Options
    #925
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Maguined wrote: »
    Probabilities in the particular case? you don't need to know the probabilities of the specific case to determine the probability based on an entire previous set. From the stats that was posted up previously 8,392 cases had their asylum rejected, of these 166 cases were sucessfully appealed and 288 cases were settled, lets be generous and assume all these settled cases actually counted as successfully appealed. That meanst 454 cases out of 8,392 were appealed meaning the odds of a successful appeal are 6% (more generous rounding on my part).

    Since the RCSI are able to create an extra slot on the course and waive fees and pay for accomodation would it not make more logical and reasonable sense for the RCSI to give this extra slot to a student who has a greater than 6% chance of remaining in the country?

    Since you like those odds if you give me 100 euro I promise you there is a 6% chance I will then donate 1,000 euro of my own money to any student charity you want but there is a 94% chance I will keep your 100 euro. Want to take me up on this offer since you find these odds perfectly reasonable?

    Tell me they're not paying for her accommodation?


  • Options
    #926
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Maguined wrote: »
    I never said they had to wait, I said it was short sighted to make the decision when her legal status is more likely to change to deportation than it is to be granted asylum. My point is completely logical, it is weighing up the odds and saying the odds are heavily against this woman being allowed to legally stay in the country and benefit from the RCSI's generosity.

    It would be more logical if the RCSI created this extra space, waived the fees and paid for the accomodation of a student that is more likely to remain within the country than to leve. Point out what is illogical about that statement? I don't expect you to respond however as you love to demand answers from other posters while rarely responding to question directly put to you.

    ..............

    Why? If the idea is to be make sure the young woman continues in education then it's logical to provide a place for as long as she can avail of it.


  • Options
    #927
    Maguined
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Tell me they're not paying for her accommodation?

    The RCSI created an extra space on the course so it would not affect the CAO application process (but it would be a kick in the teeth of someone who got the points but was rejected because the course filled up but no extra space was created for them), They waived all the fees and they said since the family is based in Limerick and the RCSI is in Dublin they would provide her accomodation as well. They did not go into the specific details but I would imagine they would also need to provide some sort of allowance as well as I doubt a family on direct provision support could afford to pay for the food and bills of a student in Dublin.

    I have no problem with the RCSI doing this from a legal point of view as it is their money but I do see it as inefficient as they could of easily given this fantastic opportunity to any other student that has a greater than 6% chance of staying in the country and completing their studies and gaining employment here.


  • Options
    #928
    Maguined
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Nodin wrote: »
    Why? If the idea is to be make sure the young woman continues in education then it's logical to provide a place for as long as she can avail of it.

    Why should I answer any of your questions Nodin when you never answer any questions I directly put to you? There has been no two way discussion at all. I ask you a question and you never respond just to ask me over and over "why?".


  • Options
    #929
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Maguined wrote: »
    Why should I answer any of your questions Nodin when you never answer any questions I directly put to you? There has been no two way discussion at all. I ask you a question and you never respond just to ask me over and over "why?".

    What question? The nonsense about them not being granted asylum meaning they must an economic migrant? That's been explained already. If you didn't understand the point, you should have brought it up at the time.


  • Options
    #930
    Maguined
    Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    Nodin wrote: »
    What question? The nonsense about them not being granted asylum meaning they must an economic migrant? That's been explained already. If you didn't understand the point, you should have brought it up at the time.
    Maguined wrote: »
    I did not dispute the legality. I am disputing the reason and logic. If a year or two into her studies she is issued a deportation order would that not be a waste of RSCI resources?

    Also my point was more to do with Brrathnach labeling supposition as inherently prejudiced. Do you agree with that claim?

    Never answered.
    Maguined wrote: »
    I didn't ask for what the RSCI thought. I asked what did you think. You said making a judgement without the facts equals prejudice. In your opinion does this make the RCSI judgement which did not wait for the facts either to be based on prejudice?

    Certainly seem? Explain why instead of making a statement that it seems to. The statistics are overwhelming clear that the vast majority of asylum requests are denied. These are facts so why do you ignore the facts and assume it is based on prejudice? Where is your evidence it is based on prejudice and not stats? Have I said anything to suggest I am prejudiced against Ukrainians?

    Never answered.
    Maguined wrote: »
    I never said they had to wait, I said it was short sighted to make the decision when her legal status is more likely to change to deportation than it is to be granted asylum. My point is completely logical, it is weighing up the odds and saying the odds are heavily against this woman being allowed to legally stay in the country and benefit from the RCSI's generosity.

    It would be more logical if the RCSI created this extra space, waived the fees and paid for the accomodation of a student that is more likely to remain within the country than to leve. Point out what is illogical about that statement? I don't expect you to respond however as you love to demand answers from other posters while rarely responding to question directly put to you.

    What is your definition of an economic migrant then? If an individuals experiences are not judged to warrant asylum, they did not get a work via and entered a country what is their status then?

    Never answered.

    I put question marks at the end of a sentence rather than a full stop for a reason. If you want to ignore these questions why would you expect me to answer yours? A bit of give and take is all I ask. If you answer my questions I will be more than happy to answer yours but I do not think anything constructive happens when you refuse to answer questions posed to you and only reappear in the thread later to ask your own.

    If you will indulge me with another question, do you want to take me up on the bet I offered P. Breathnach? If not can you give me a reason why not?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #931
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,238 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Should RCSI base their decisions on that? Should they shrug their shoulders and say "Well, she's probably going to be deported in the next year or two, so we are not interested in her welfare"?
    That would be taking a prejudicial stance. Right now, the family are here legally, albeit conditionally and with uncertain prospects of being allowed to remain.
    If a decision is based on reason then it's not prejudicial.
    Should the family be refused refugee status and be deported, I would imagine that Anna might be granted a student visa of some sort.
    Which would make a lot of sense.
    I'd hate to see a valuable education being thrown away because someone couldn't finish a course.
    That said I can't see a judge signing off on a deportation order for her while she's still in college.


Advertisement