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
Mediterranean migrants- specific questions
Options
Comments
-
The question asked was specifically in relation to the med and the Syrians.
"Should the Government have offered to settle more, less, or is the number just right, or should the Government not have offered to get involved in the settlement programme"
...thus saying that the public want a cap on asylum seekers is stretching it.
http://www.resettlement.eu/page/eu-funding-resettlement-erfamifrgossip30 wrote:You got a source that the EU will fund the resettlement of these asylum seekers
and the amount !!rgossip30 wrote:There is an EU rule that countries cannot pick skilled and educated asylum seekers but must take those allocated . This will mean that many coming here do not have the language and skills for employment .
Please explain.0 -
The second poll is fairly out of date given it takes place well before the migrant crisis reached its current levels: even if you include the total numbers of migrants arriving in May (which is of questionable relevence for a poll held in mid May), the number of Mediterranean arrivals by that point were only around half of what we've seen in the month of September alone.
The first poll is more relevent as it's a recent one. However, it does not support your claim that the government is "ignoring" that people want limits on people arriving. The government has always known this, it's why they're taking in a limited number of refugees. At any rate, a plurality of the poll agree we're taking in the right amount with close to two thirds thinking that we're at least capable of handling this.0 -
-
You do realise don't you that this 4,000/30,000 "refugees" is only phase one of a yearly saga for an grossly overstretched immigration and nationalisation service that has people queuing throughout the night for visa stamps!! I passed by it last night at 10:30 and there were about 2 dozen people waiting for this morning's intake.The second poll is fairly out of date given it takes place well before the migrant crisis reached its current levels: even if you include the total numbers of migrants arriving in May (which is of questionable relevence for a poll held in mid May), the number of Mediterranean arrivals by that point were only around half of what we've seen in the month of September alone.
The first poll is more relevent as it's a recent one. However, it does not support your claim that the government is "ignoring" that people want limits on people arriving. The government has always known this, it's why they're taking in a limited number of refugees. At any rate, a plurality of the poll agree we're taking in the right amount with close to two thirds thinking that we're at least capable of handling this.0 -
You do realise don't you that this 4,000/30,000 "refugees" is only phase one of a yearly saga for an grossly overstretched immigration and nationalisation service that has people queuing throughout the night for visa stamps!! I passed by it last night at 10:30 and there were about 2 dozen people waiting for this morning's intake.
Eh, 4000 across a country of 4.5 million people is hardly going to destroy our immigration department. Especially as if they're granted refugee status, they won't need visa stamps on a regular basis, now will they?
Also, 30,000 refugees. Where did you get that from? Or did you just pull it out of thin air?
Also, I'm interested why you feel the need to put refugees in "inverted" commas. Do you think they're mostly spoofers or something? Considering 90% are expected to be successful in their refugee claims. Ireland is hardly going to be bringing in Kosovars or Albanians trying to claim asylum.
Are you still clinging to your fantasies that the vast majority of new arrivals are migrants rather than refugees?0 -
Advertisement
-
The legal limbo is a perennial problem across all the EU member states. Other countries allow some provision for asylum seekers to work while their claims are being processed (after a year in the UK for example or immediately in Sweden) but we have no such provisions in Ireland. Considering how many people are stuck in direct provision for years on end, it urgently needs reforming. There is an appeals process (Which certainly needs to be kept) but having appeals last for years on end isn't an efficient system, or a humane one.RDM_83 again wrote: »Is the legal limbo people find themselves in the Irish goverments doing? I was under the impression that the initial assesment actually occurs quiet quickly and its the numerous assesments (and our high rejection rate makes sense if you consider our geographic location even with the oft quoted Regulations).0 -
The figure will grow to over 30,000 when family reunification starts and they will still have to be in contact with the Gardai immigration and natralisation services for a long time as it is unlikely that they will be granted automatic refugee status or citizenship.Eh, 4000 across a country of 4.5 million people is hardly going to destroy our immigration department. Especially as if they're granted refugee status, they won't need visa stamps on a regular basis, now will they?
Also, 30,000 refugees. Where did you get that from? Or did you just pull it out of thin air?
Also, I'm interested why you feel the need to put refugees in "inverted" commas. Do you think they're mostly spoofers or something? Considering 90% are expected to be successful in their refugee claims. Ireland is hardly going to be bringing in Kosovars or Albanians trying to claim asylum.
Are you still clinging to your fantasies that the vast majority of new arrivals are migrants rather than refugees?
And yes it has been found by many of our European neighbours that a large number of "asylum seekers" are not genuine and are there as economic migrants and are from "safe" countries!0 -
The figure will grow to over 30,000 when family reunification starts.............!
That's an assumption on your part, not a fact..................and they will still have to be in contact with the Gardai immigration and natralisation services for a long time as it is unlikely that they will be granted automatic refugee status or citizenship. !
They are to be fast tracked
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/refugees-will-be-allowed-to-work-in-ireland-and-number-will-rise-as-they-reunite-with-families-695208.htmlAnd yes it has been found by many of our European neighbours that a large number of "asylum seekers" are not genuine and are there as economic migrants and are from "safe" countries!
But this state is taking in Syrians specifically.0 -
The legal limbo is a perennial problem across all the EU member states. Other countries allow some provision for asylum seekers to work while their claims are being processed (after a year in the UK for example or immediately in Sweden) but we have no such provisions in Ireland. Considering how many people are stuck in direct provision for years on end, it urgently needs reforming. There is an appeals process (Which certainly needs to be kept) but having appeals last for years on end isn't an efficient system, or a humane one.
yes but AFAIK the line from Germany, which doesn't get much play among one wing of this debate is that there will be far quicker deportions and rejections of bogus claims.
In the Irish case it should be fairly easy to prove claims in that the only way to be legitimately here would mean you would have the various airplane tickets (nobody actually looses all their flight details in a transport hub they are awash with security), its hard for the government to disprove claims to a 100% certainty though or work out which other EU country they transited through.0 -
You do realise how limited family reunification is in Ireland, right?The figure will grow to over 30,000 when family reunification starts and they will still have to be in contact with the Gardai immigration and natralisation services for a long time as it is unlikely that they will be granted automatic refugee status or citizenship.
Those granted asylum can bring their spouse and their unmarried children under 18. Or their parents if the one granted refugee status is under 18. That's it, unless they can show clear dependency on another family member and even then, it's at the minister's discretion. Considering such restrictions, it's extremely unlikely it would reach 30,000, especially as the government is prioritizing unaccompanied minors who would only be able to bring their parents.
Am I correct in presuming that you pulled 30,000 out of the air? Seeing as the highest estimate I've seen has been 20,000 and even then, that's a high estimate.
The government has already said the refugees would be conducted through a fast track process. Considering Syrians alone have a 96% chance of being granted asylum in other countries, it's hardly likely that they'd be stuck around for a "long time" as you seem to think.
And how large is this "Large number"? Of course there will be some economic migrants (especially from the Balkans) who try to claim asylum in Europe but that's not what we're discussing here. The refugees arriving to Ireland will be those from Syria, Iraq and Eritrea (all of whom have a roughly 90%chance of being grantedAnd yes it has been found by many of our European neighbours that a large number of "asylum seekers" are not genuine and are there as economic migrants and are from "safe" countries!
you'd need to show a lot more evidence here.0 -
Advertisement
-
RDM_83 again wrote: »yes but AFAIK the line from Germany, which doesn't get much play among one wing of this debate is that there will be far quicker deportions and rejections of bogus claims.
In the Irish case it should be fairly easy to prove claims in that the only way to be legitimately here would mean you would have the various airplane tickets (nobody actually looses all their flight details in a transport hub they are awash with security), its hard for the government to disprove claims to a 100% certainty though or work out which other EU country they transited through.
Having a system of rapid appeals and rejections isn't a problem: it's a very good thing and prevents the refugees being stuck in the direct provision system.
Can you expand on why the only to prove you're here legitimately is by having multiple plane tickets? The refugees arriving to Europe are doing primarily by sea.0 -
Having a system of rapid appeals and rejections isn't a problem: it's a very good thing and prevents the refugees being stuck in the direct provision system.
Can you expand on why the only to prove you're here legitimately is by having multiple plane tickets? The refugees arriving to Europe are doing primarily by sea.
Oh I am referring to Ireland in the normal scheme of things not this new redistribution which is desperate.
Irelands high rejection rate is often cited as why so many appeals and hence such long waits (where in reality it appears to be the participants themselves )0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »Oh I am referring to Ireland in the normal scheme of things not this new redistribution which is desperate.
Irelands high rejection rate is often cited as why so many appeals and hence such long waits (where in reality it appears to be the participants themselves )
It's more to do with the government being completely unprepared for the asylum system. When the direct provision system was brought in 2000, it was only intended as a short term measure, with applicants not remaining in it for longer than six months. On average, they now spend four years in the direct provision system. Even when a deportation order is signed, it usually takes a year and a half to get enforced.
The participants aren't responsible for how long the system takes. Unless you're saying they're responsible for it due to their invoking their right to appeal?0 -
What has our population got to do with our ability to process asylum seekers?Eh, 4000 across a country of 4.5 million people is hardly going to destroy our immigration department.
1444 asylum applications were made in 2014.
In the first half of 2015, 1480 applications were made.
If that trend continues we could be looking at 3000 applications by the end of the year.
On top of that were now looking at adding rougly 3500 on to that number.
That's an estimated 6500 for the year, or a year on year increase of 222%, if my maths is correct.
I think having concerns about how this will affect the various bodies tasked with dealing with this asylum seekers is a genuine concern.
Does this apply to just the initial application or the whole process?The government has already said the refugees would be conducted through a fast track process.
What is the basis for determining where these asylum seekers are from though?And how large is this "Large number"? Of course there will be some economic migrants (especially from the Balkans) but that's not what we're discussing here. The refugees arriving will primarily be those from Syria, Iraq and Eritrea (all of whom have a roughly 90%chance of being granted
If we look at Germany, it's estimated that about 30% of asylum seekers claiming to be Syrian aren't.
The system can only be made so fast.The participants aren't responsible for how long the system takes. Unless you're saying they're responsible for it due to their invoking their right to appeal?
If an applicant wants to appeal to every possible court that's their right.
But if the are knowingly making false statements or appealing decisions for the sole reason of staying longer, then that's on them.0 -
Not really, considering the additional refugees we're taking in will be subject to fasttracked process. It's not evident so far how this will be done but given the success rates involved with the relevent nationalities, it's unlikely to put much of a burden if just 10% of them are immediately denied asylum for whatever reason.jackofalltrades wrote: »What has our population got to do with our ability to process asylum seekers?
1444 asylum applications were made in 2014.
In the first half of 2015, 1480 applications were made.
If that trend continues we could be looking at 3000 applications by the end of the year.
On top of that were now looking at adding rougly 3500 on to that number.
That's an estimated 6500 for the year, or a year on year increase of 222%, if my maths is correct.
I think having concerns about how this will affect the various bodies tasked with dealing with this asylum seekers is a genuine concern.
Unclear. However, given the extremely high success rates for Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreats for gaining asylum, the entire process is hardly going to be much of an issue. The government estimates 90% of those being taken will get asylum. Given the nationalities involved, this is a fair estimate.jackofalltrades wrote: »Does this apply to just the initial application or the whole process?
Dunno, maybe contact the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service if you're concerned? I daresay they have reasonably accurate methods of determining where people are from. They've been around a fair while and we're already one of the harsher countries in the EU for accepting asylum claims. source so they're hardly soft on such things.jackofalltrades wrote: »What is the basis for determining where these asylum seekers are from though?
Except that he's also admitted it's just an estimate and there's absolutely no statistics available yet.jackofalltrades wrote: »If we look at Germany, it's estimated that about 30% of asylum seekers claiming to be Syrian aren't.
Hardly very precise or reliable.
At any rate, if someone is lying about being Syrian, do you not think this will be fairly evident in their application process?
Not quite: the slowness of the system has been under repeated criticism for years, resulting in the latest DoJ reportjackofalltrades wrote: »The system can only be made so fast.
If an applicant wants to appeal to every possible court that's their right.
But if the are knowingly making false statements or appealing decisions for the sole reason of staying longer, then that's on them.
Likewise, in the Okunade case the Supreme Court noted that it was an asylum process deemed "extremely complicated" and "cumbersome" that was responsible for the asylum seeker's lengthy stay in Ireland.
Ireland is also quite unique in that it doesn't offer simultaneous refugee and subsidiary protection: even if someone does not strictly qualify for refugee status, they can still face genuine risks in their home countries. Ireland only allows people to claim subsidiary protection after their refugee claim has been exhausted. If we allowed their refugee case to simultaneously assess them for subsidiary protection, we wouldn't have this long, drawn out system.
Also it's important to note that asylum seekers cannot be blamed for the length of the process: if an Irish person wants to appeal their case to the High Court and then the Supreme Court, we don't see any issue with this. Given an asylum seeker lives in an institutionalized environment and with no capacity to work whatsover, it's hardly an equitable system.0 -
Roughly 3500 people will have to apply for refugee status, fill in the forms and be interviewed.Not really, considering the additional refugees we're taking in will be subject to fasttracked process. It's not evident so far how this will be done but given the success rates involved with the relevent nationalities, it's unlikely to put much of a burden if just 10% of them are immediately denied asylum for whatever reason.
That's a huge undertaking for that many people.
Best case scenario you're looking at 350 getting denied at this stage.
Worst case scenario, if the estimate from Germany was applied to all nationalities 1,000 people would go through to the next stages.
The 90% figure I'm assuming is the success rate for people genuinely from that country.Unclear. However, given the extremely high success rates for Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreats for gaining asylum, the entire process is hardly going to be much of an issue.
The government estimates 90% of those being taken will get asylum. Given the nationalities involved, this is a fair estimate.
I doubt the government have taken into account people lying about their nationality.
My guess is that they are going to be allotted people who have self-declared or have passports for the chosen nationalities.Dunno, maybe contact the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service if you're concerned? I daresay they have reasonably accurate methods of determining where people are from.
They've been around a fair while and we're already one of the harsher countries in the EU for accepting asylum claims. source so they're hardly soft on such things.
From here:Except that he's also admitted it's just an estimate and there's absolutely no statistics available yet.
Hardly very precise or reliable.
At any rate, if someone is lying about being Syrian, do you not think this will be fairly evident in their application process?
I know it's an estimate, they don't keep official statistics."It's an estimate based on the observations of officials on the ground, especially the federal police, the Office for Migration and Refugees and [EU border protection agency] Frontex," he continued.
He said that Germany does not keep official figures on the numbers of immigrants who give false information about their nationality.
It's official organisations involved in this estimate.
You're dismissing it too easily.
I'm aware of the current failings in the system and the legislation being prepared to fix the issue.Not quite: the slowness of the system has been under repeated criticism for years, resulting in the latest DoJ report
Likewise, in the Okunade case the Supreme Court noted that it was an asylum process deemed "extremely complicated" and "cumbersome" that was responsible for the asylum seeker's lengthy stay in Ireland.
Ireland is also quite unique in that it doesn't offer simultaneous refugee and subsidiary protection: even if someone does not strictly qualify for refugee status, they can still face genuine risks in their home countries. Ireland only allows people to claim subsidiary protection after their refugee claim has been exhausted. If we allowed their refugee case to simultaneously assess them for subsidiary protection, we wouldn't have this long, drawn out system.
Also it's important to note that asylum seekers cannot be blamed for the length of the process: if an Irish person wants to appeal their case to the High Court and then the Supreme Court, we don't see any issue with this.
Given an asylum seeker lives in an institutionalized environment and with no capacity to work whatsover, it's hardly an equitable system.
The situation with applying for for subsidiary protection is a joke.
That said applicants knowingly making false statements or appealing decisions for the sole reason of staying longer, have to accept responsibility for their situation.
And I'd say a lot of people would have issues with the cases like the O'Donnell family endlessly appealing their eviction.0 -
jackofalltrades wrote: »What has our population got to do with our ability to process asylum seekers?
1444 asylum applications were made in 2014.
In the first half of 2015, 1480 applications were made.
If that trend continues we could be looking at 3000 applications by the end of the year.
On top of that were now looking at adding rougly 3500 on to that number.
That's an estimated 6500 for the year, or a year on year increase of 222%, if my maths is correct.
I think having concerns about how this will affect the various bodies tasked with dealing with this asylum seekers is a genuine concern.
..................
While I'm sure that a strain will be put on services, bringing them here and sorting it out is rather a better alternative to leaving people fleeing a war lying somewhere in limbo.0 -
Hardly a best case scenario. The German figures are those who merely make it to the country. Ireland won't just be randomly picking immigrants and deciding it that way so trying to apply the German estimates (which are unsubstantiated) isn't much use. With the Irish government estimating 90%, making allowances for those of the wrong nationality or who or otherwise unable to claim asylum (threat to the peace etc). The acceptance rate is around 90% anyway, except for Syrians where it's even higher. Presumably, there will be some pre-screening involved as the Irish government is hardly going to take randomers and risk a terrorist arriving.jackofalltrades wrote: »Roughly 3500 people will have to apply for refugee status, fill in the forms and be interviewed.
That's a huge undertaking for that many people.
Best case scenario you're looking at 350 getting denied at this stage.
Worst case scenario, if the estimate from Germany was applied to all nationalities 1,000 people would go through to the next stages.
If they were solely going by actual nationals from those three countries, the figures would be higher than 90%: Syrians are the plurality of refugees from the three and they have a 94 % acceptance rate alone.jackofalltrades wrote: »The 90% figure I'm assuming is the success rate for people genuinely from that country.
I doubt the government have taken into account people lying about their nationality.
Doubtful. Self-declared is a possibility but I can't see why refugees would bother lying to the UNHCR. Even Frontex's own figures have Syrians as 42% of the refugees (figures which don't include September, while the UNHCR has noted that Syrian refugees as a percentage of total arrivals has increased since then)jackofalltrades wrote: »My guess is that they are going to be allotted people who have self-declared or have passports for the chosen nationalities.
At any rate, if it was merely self-declaration, do you not think the figure would be much higher than 40% (Frontex figures) to 54% (UNHCR) being Syrians?
As for passports, that's of even more dubious value: a lot of Syrians won't have passports. Part of being in a warzone for the last few years with little effective government, especially in one as authoritarian and corrupt as the Assad regime. If you're a FSA fighter, you're hardly going to go to the government for a passport, are you?
Not quite: Frontex's own data has Syrians as being a plurality of the arrivals (although their data doesn't include September which has been the biggest month for refugee arrivals anyway)jackofalltrades wrote: »From here:
I know it's an estimate, they don't keep official statistics.
It's official organisations involved in this estimate.
You're dismissing it too easily.
At any rate, the German interior ministry spokesman has already said it's merely an estimate and not one based on any precise statistics. If you want to use it as a source, you'd need to provide much more concrete evidence than this.
This certainly happens but this does not take away from the fact that the entire system is inherently clunky, slow moving and inefficient. This was a key part of the reason for the Okunade ruling: it's the bureaucracy's fault, not the refugees.jackofalltrades wrote: »I'm aware of the current failings in the system and the legislation being prepared to fix the issue.
The situation with applying for for subsidiary protection is a joke.
That said applicants knowingly making false statements or appealing decisions for the sole reason of staying longer, have to accept responsibility for their situation.
And I'd say a lot of people would have issues with the cases like the O'Donnell family endlessly appealing their eviction.0 -
I based the best case scenario on the governments projection.Hardly a best case scenario. The German figures are those who merely make it to the country. Ireland won't just be randomly picking immigrants and deciding it that way so trying to apply the German estimates (which are unsubstantiated) isn't much use.
But if you look at the Q2 2015 EU-28 figures.
First time acceptance for refugee status:
Syria 73%
Iraq 78%
Eritrea 69%
If Ireland replicates these rates(we're below the average at the moment), this is going to lead to a good portion of these asylum seekers potentially appealing decisions.
Just to clarify, are you saying that the government's 90% figure includes allowances for people stating the wrong nationality?With the Irish government estimating 90%, making allowances for those of the wrong nationality or who or otherwise unable to claim asylum (threat to the peace etc).
I'd assume there is pre-screening for terrorist links, but there's no information on what they are doing.Presumably, there will be some pre-screening involved as the Irish government is hardly going to take randomers and risk a terrorist arriving.
On what basis are you making the assumption that the majority of the asylum seekers we take will be Syrian?If they were solely going by actual nationals from those three countries, the figures would be higher than 90%: Syrians are the plurality of refugees from the three and they have a 94 % acceptance rate alone.
Has anything been said on what country or where we are taking these asylum seekers from?
I honestly don't know why you are brining up these statistics or talking about lying to the UNHCR.Doubtful. Self-declared is a possibility but I can't see why refugees would bother lying to the UNHCR. Even Frontex's own figures have Syrians as 42% of the refugees (figures which don't include September, while the UNHCR has noted that Syrian refugees as a percentage of total arrivals has increased since then)
At any rate, if it was merely self-declaration, do you not think the figure would be much higher than 40% (Frontex figures) to 54% (UNHCR) being Syrians?
As for passports, that's of even more dubious value: a lot of Syrians won't have passports. Part of being in a warzone for the last few years with little effective government, especially in one as authoritarian and corrupt as the Assad regime. If you're a FSA fighter, you're hardly going to go to the government for a passport, are you?
I'm well aware it's an estimate, I haven't being using it as a concrete source.Not quite: Frontex's own data has Syrians as being a plurality of the arrivals (although their data doesn't include September which has been the biggest month for refugee arrivals anyway)
At any rate, the German interior ministry spokesman has already said it's merely an estimate and not one based on any precise statistics. If you want to use it as a source, you'd need to provide much more concrete evidence than this.
Yes, but can you admit that there are cases where the asylum seekers bear some or most of the responsibility for the time taken to process their case?This certainly happens but this does not take away from the fact that the entire system is inherently clunky, slow moving and inefficient. This was a key part of the reason for the Okunade ruling: it's the bureaucracy's fault, not the refugees.0 -
While I'm sure that a strain will be put on services, bringing them here and sorting it out is rather a better alternative to leaving people fleeing a war lying somewhere in limbo.
Why are you still assuming they are all fleeing a war zone?
If you keep enticing people to come, Plenty will...............and plenty more will die making a treacherous journey that in some cases was not life or death. Assuming all these people are genuine refugees at this stage (after all the discussion) is ridiculous.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why are you still assuming they are all fleeing a war zone?
If you keep enticing people to come, Plenty will...............and plenty more will die making a treacherous journey that in some cases was not life or death. Assuming all these people are genuine refugees at this stage (after all the discussion) is ridiculous.
The comments were related to the Irish government specifically and we are taking in Syrians.0 -
-
The comments were related to the Irish government specifically and we are taking in Syrians.
I know it's not that big of a problem given the numbers, but when German authorities say that 1 in 3 'Syrians' are not from there and either have no or false passports, how can you be sure they are not people abusing the asylum process ?
It's slightly unrelated since he talks more about the environment, but Elon Musk made a good point that what we are seeing now is peanuts compared to what might happen a few decades down the line, when certain places in the world become uninhabitable due to drought, desertification,...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elon-musk-in-berlin_560484dee4b08820d91c5f5f0 -
Not quite, as you're ignoring being granted asylum under subsidiary protection. These are clearly taken into account in the above charts.jackofalltrades wrote: »I based the best case scenario on the governments projection.
But if you look at the Q2 2015 EU-28 figures.
First time acceptance for refugee status:
Syria 73%
Iraq 78%
Eritrea 69%
If Ireland replicates these rates(we're below the average at the moment), this is going to lead to a good portion of these asylum seekers potentially appealing decisions.
More simply Eurostat states
This means that between Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis, the success rate is 93%. 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.Syrians have received by far the highest number of protection statuses in the EU, including protection based on national legislations (24 400 positive first instance decisions, or 96% rate of recognition[5]), followed by Eritreans (4 800, or 84%), Iraqis (4 700, or 87%)
Yup, it makes allowances for all people brought to Ireland but subsequently found to be ineligible for asylum.jackofalltrades wrote: »Just to clarify, are you saying that the government's 90% figure includes allowances for people stating the wrong nationality?
Yeah but the government are hardly just gonna take random people or say "Where you from? Syria? Great, get in the van".jackofalltrades wrote: »I'd assume there is pre-screening for terrorist links, but there's no information on what they are doing.
I didn't say the majority, I said the plurality. This is based on the fact that Syrians are the plurality of those arriving in Europe.jackofalltrades wrote: »On what basis are you making the assumption that the majority of the asylum seekers we take will be Syrian?
Yes, I mentioned this on the very last page. See herejackofalltrades wrote: »Has anything been said on what country or where we are taking these asylum seekers from?
Irish TimesOn Thursday, the Government confirmed Ireland would settle 2,900 refugees – from Syria, Eritrea and Iraq – under the EU’s refugee relocation programme.
You don't? The German estimate said it was based on estimates by German police and Frontex. Given we've no data available by the German police (unless you can provide some), we've only Frontex's to look at. Frontex's figures between January and August show 42% of arrivals as Syrian. This is similar enough to the UNHCR's figure of 54% (which is the latest, September figures)jackofalltrades wrote: »I honestly don't know why you are brining up these statistics or talking about lying to the UNHCR.
Bringing up the UNHCR is vital as they're figures show that over half of Mediterranean arrivals are Syrian. Likewise, Frontex show that over 40% (although their figures ignore the huge spike in September) If it was merely a case of self-assesment for nationality, do you not think the numbers would be much, much higher than this? Given a Syrian has effectively guaranteed asylum>
Using a source where the author admits its an estimate without any solid statistical basis isn't a very credible one.jackofalltrades wrote: »I'm well aware it's an estimate, I haven't being using it as a concrete source.
Some cases? Sure. But I'm not sure why I need to "admit" this. The problem is an institutional one, not one caused by the asylum seekers themselves, except in some isolated cases. Unless you can prove these are commonplace and the system is not to blame? To do this you'd need to provide some extremely solid evidence.jackofalltrades wrote: »Yes, but can you admit that there are cases where the asylum seekers bear some or most of the responsibility for the time taken to process their case?0 -
-
0
-
So 100% of the people the Irish government are accepting are from Syria?
Do you agree with the discrimination not to let other refugees from other war zones?
No, we're taking in Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis. They comprise a large number of the arrivals in Europe and are also three nationalities with an extremely high chance of being granted asylum.0 -
We are letting in others through the normal process.
Then why not just carry on the same for everyone?
Simple, you are discriminating against others.
Just because Syria is in the news does not mean the lives of the people from other war zones are less important.
Tough luck for people from Yemen under your rules.0 -
No, we're taking in Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis. They comprise a large number of the arrivals in Europe and are also three nationalities with an extremely high chance of being granted asylum.
Yes, I thought so....Nodin should take note then.
By the way, far more Yemenis have died under Saudi bombardment than Eritreans......As I said, not the hot topic on the news at the moment perhaps.0 -
Advertisement
-
Because somebody will check?
How will you check if someone is from Syria if they have no passport ? Believe them on their word ? And by all accounts a lot of the fake passports are pretty well made.
This is not some attempt at discrediting the actual Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis, but it's a well-founded worry that some people may abuse the asylum system.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement