Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

Lockstep

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,

Lockstep

foggy_lad wrote: »

A common mistake, you can't add two sets of percentage figures for the same 100% total together like this! you would have to show clearly that none of the first lot were in the second lot and vice-versa.

Yes you can, that's exactly what the EU is doing. Using the Syrians as an example,
73% are granted refugee status, 22% are granted subsidiary protection and 5% are rejected in the first instance
See how Eurostat add together those granted refugee status, those granted subsidiary protection and those refused asylum altogether?
So yeah, they add up to 100%, with only 5% being refused asylum.

Lockstep

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.

K-9

foggy_lad wrote: »

A common mistake, you can't add two sets of percentage figures for the same 100% total together like this! you would have to show clearly that none of the first lot were in the second lot and vice-versa.

In this case its correct to add the 73 and 22 to get 95% of cases that were granted asylum. That's what we are interested in.

Saying 27% failed to get asylum is incorrect.

About 83% win their appeal, we can't just ignore that because its inconvenient to our argument.

foggy_lad

Lockstep wrote: »

Yes you can, that's exactly what the EU is doing. Using the Syrians as an example,
73% are granted refugee status, 22% are granted subsidiary protection and 5% are rejected in the first instance
See how Eurostat add together those granted refugee status, those granted subsidiary protection and those refused asylum altogether?
So yeah, they add up to 100%, with only 5% being refused asylum.

But that is only counting those proven to be Syrians, What about all the others?

Looking at those in Germany and the rest of Europe it does appear a large number, possible even a majority of people are not Syrian and not in need of any kind of Asylum because they have tramped through several safe countries after spending months and years in safe camps.

Europe has zero obligation to provide for the poor of the world! We simply MUST help those who are found to be genuinely seeking asylum out of human decency but that is where I draw the line!

jackofalltrades

Lockstep wrote: »

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.

No there isn't.
I'm only talking about people getting refugee status.
That's what the press releases are talking about, when they mention the 90% figure and that's what on the Department of Justices website.

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,

Because you have to be a failed asylum seeker before your subsidiary application claim will be considered; source.
That and subsidiary protection is considered more temporary.

However, in recognition of the primacy of the Refugee Convention and of the fact that the need for subsidiary protection in principle is more temporary, all rights and entitlements are granted for a period of 3 years only....The status is renewable.

It makes sense to start of at refugee status and work down.

jackofalltrades

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.

K-9

Why would we ignore subsidiary protection?

gobsh!te

Frank Grimes wrote: »

It's not really my opinion that Syria and Iraq existed (albeit in different forms) before the current borders were drawn. I have read your post and the subsequent replies and I have pointed out, as have others, the problem with what you are saying. I never mentioned anything about what you said about the ethnic make up of the countries either so I don't know why you bring that up. Constantly replying with "well played" doesn't give your posts more credibility either.

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

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.

Nodin

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?

.

They do not speak the same form of Arabic, as has been explained to you before. What point are you trying to make?

gobsh!te

Nodin wrote: »

They do not speak the same form of Arabic, as has been explained to you before. What point are you trying to make?

The form of Arabic spoken in Morocco V Iraq is different.

There's little or no difference between Iraq and Syria's version of Arabic.

You're relying on what another poster wrote and can't back up your claim with proof as usual.

You were wrong when you said Ireland was only accepting Syrians and you are wrong again.

Jelle1880

Nodin wrote: »

They do not speak the same form of Arabic, as has been explained to you before. What point are you trying to make?

I'm from Belgium, I don't speak the same form of Dutch as someone from the Netherlands, but I can sure pretend to and given a bit of practice I'm sure I can fool them into thinking I'm Dutch. Same for German or French.

I know there's plenty of reasons why people may get found out when pretending to be Syrians, but language is not necessarily one of them.

Frank Grimes

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.

jmayo

Can I ask the pro refugee posters (for want of a better word to describe them including the mods who are weighing in heavily in this argument) a few questions.

1. We are supposed to take in 4,000 right.
Does this mean we only take 4,000 in total from either other European countries or camps in Jordan, Lebannon, etc ?
What if someone ends up at Dublin ariport and asked for asylum, does that mean we now only have 3,999 places for the others ?


2. Are we going to take in 4,000 next year and the year after, because lets face the flood aint going to stop anytime soon unless miracle cures are found for Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc.

Do the pro lobby think there should be a max number and what should it be ?

3. Do posters have a pecking order of refugee worthiness i.e. Syrians (and then which ones, as in Shia, Kurds, Alawis, Druze. Christians), Iraqi, Eritrean, Sudanese, Afghani, Libyan, etc, etc?

4. How do they think these 4,000 plus people should be integrated into Irish society ?
Do they think they should be plonked in one area (should we deem one city/ town in Ireland should become our Marseille or Blackburn) or spread throughout the country ?

I know someone else asked some of these questions, but I am not sure if there ever was an answer.
All I can see is some arguing we should take in people, but never any real concrete ideas about numbers, breakdown or what to do with them.

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

The form of Arabic spoken in Morocco V Iraq is different.

There's little or no difference between Iraq and Syria's version of Arabic.

You're relying on what another poster wrote and can't back up your claim with proof as usual.

You were wrong when you said Ireland was only accepting Syrians and you are wrong again.

Its Levantine Arabic vs Mesopotamian Arabic. The two are distinct.

Frank Grimes

jmayo wrote: »

1. We are supposed to take in 4,000 right.
Does this mean we only take 4,000 in total from either other European countries or camps in Jordan, Lebannon, etc ?
What if someone ends up at Dublin ariport and asked for asylum, does that mean we now only have 3,999 places for the others ?

My understanding (as I've had to point out elsewhere I do not work for an NGO or the government for that matter) is that the refugees being accepted are separate to the regular asylum process, more analogous to the programme refugees we accept. So, as far as I understand; no, someone showing up at the airport won't reduce the number.

2. Are we going to take in 4,000 next year and the year after, because lets face the flood aint going to stop anytime soon unless miracle cures are found for Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc.

Do the pro lobby think there should be a max number and what should it be ?

I've said in another thread that I don't think it should be a free for all so yes, in my opinion, there should be a maximum number. What that number is, I cannot answer as I do not have enough information as to what would be a feasible number in terms of resources, finance etc. available - that's something the government can only really answer, again in my opinion. I'm not avoiding answering the question, I just do not see the point in me plucking a number off the top of my head without the relevant information to make an informed decision.

3. Do posters have a pecking order of refugee worthiness i.e. Syrians (and then which ones, as in Shia, Kurds, Alawis, Druze. Christians), Iraqi, Eritrean, Sudanese, Afghani, Libyan, etc, etc?

I'm not really sure what you are getting at with this question. My main criterion is that they are genuine refugees, if choices had to be made then it would be based on things like immediate danger etc. Again, it's hard for me to answer a question like that without more information; if numbers are limited a case-by-case assessment, with objective criteria, would probably be the best/fairest way to go about it.

4. How do they think these 4,000 plus people should be integrated into Irish society ?
Do they think they should be plonked in one area (should we deem one city/ town in Ireland should become our Marseille or Blackburn) or spread throughout the country ?

Spread out, creating ghettos won't help anyone.

gobsh!te

Nodin wrote: »

Its Levantine Arabic vs Mesopotamian Arabic. The two are distinct.

Mesopotamian Arabic is spoken in parts of Syria and Iraq.
The people that are fleeing Syria are mostly from these areas and many who are Kurds will speak the same language...also the same dialect in both Iraq and Syria.

The people in Damascus may speak Levantine Arabic however those people are not fleeing in comparison to the areas under IS control....These people speak the same dialect in both Syria and Iraq.....

After all of this you still think your average European can tell the difference a Syrian and Iraqi...come on.........you're wrong here again....3 nil

Nodin

gobsh!te wrote: »

Mesopotamian Arabic is spoken in parts of Syria and Iraq.
The people that are fleeing Syria are mostly from these areas and many who are Kurds will speak the same language...also the same dialect in both Iraq and Syria.

The people in Damascus may speak Levantine Arabic however those people are not fleeing in comparison to the areas under IS control....These people speak the same dialect in both Syria and Iraq.....

After all of this you still think your average European can tell the difference a Syrian and Iraqi...come on.........you're wrong here again....3 nil

"Your average European" will not be screening them.

foggy_lad

jmayo wrote: »

Can I ask the pro refugee posters (for want of a better word to describe them including the mods who are weighing in heavily in this argument) a few questions.

1. We are supposed to take in 4,000 right.
Does this mean we only take 4,000 in total from either other European countries or camps in Jordan, Lebannon, etc ?
What if someone ends up at Dublin ariport and asked for asylum, does that mean we now only have 3,999 places for the others ?


2. Are we going to take in 4,000 next year and the year after, because lets face the flood aint going to stop anytime soon unless miracle cures are found for Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc.

Do the pro lobby think there should be a max number and what should it be ?

3. Do posters have a pecking order of refugee worthiness i.e. Syrians (and then which ones, as in Shia, Kurds, Alawis, Druze. Christians), Iraqi, Eritrean, Sudanese, Afghani, Libyan, etc, etc?

4. How do they think these 4,000 plus people should be integrated into Irish society ?
Do they think they should be plonked in one area (should we deem one city/ town in Ireland should become our Marseille or Blackburn) or spread throughout the country ?

I know someone else asked some of these questions, but I am not sure if there ever was an answer.
All I can see is some arguing we should take in people, but never any real concrete ideas about numbers, breakdown or what to do with them.

4000 up to end of 2016 AFAIK then the clock resets.

4000 +30000? Will be on top of all other illegal and legal entries to the state including all other asylum seekers. The 4000 will be eligible for family reunification within months of arriving here. Many will bring 4+ family members here.

As for pecking order, traditionally we have taken those in greates5 need which I hope nobody has any issue with. This has included unaccompanied minors as well as many in need of urgent medical care.

rgossip30

K-9 wrote: »

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

You can always say you emigrated to Grimbsy during less troubled times .Then get a judical review and wait a few years for leave to remain its how the Irish system works.

Lockstep

foggy_lad wrote: »

But that is only counting those proven to be Syrians, What about all the others?

The government will be taking in Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis. All of whom have an extremely high chance of being granted asylum.

foggy_lad wrote: »

Looking at those in Germany and the rest of Europe it does appear a large number, possible even a majority of people are not Syrian and not in need of any kind of Asylum

The three relevent nationalities account for nearly two thirds of total European arrivals. We'll be taking in refugees from Hungary, Greece and Italy so I doubt Balkan refugees will be too prominent among them.

foggy_lad wrote: »

because they have tramped through several safe countries after spending months and years in safe camps.

There's no obligations for refugees to seek asylum in the first safe place. Sure, under the Dublin Regulation, the first country is responsible but the onus isn't on the refugees to enforce this. Let me put it this way: were Jews who fled to the US from the Third Reich not refugees just because they'd have had to head to a safe country first?

Secondly, the refugees were not able to claim asylum in the countries they predominate in anyway: Turkey has a reservation to the Refugee Convention so Middle Eastern refugees cannot claim asylum there, likewise, Jordan and Syria do not permit them to claim asylum, despite taking in millions.
As for why they're moving now after "years in safe camps", there's a very valid reason for this. See here

foggy_lad wrote: »

Europe has zero obligation to provide for the poor of the world! We simply MUST help those who are found to be genuinely seeking asylum out of human decency but that is where I draw the line!

Which is the vast, vast majority of those claiming asylum from the three countries we'll be taking them from.

Lockstep

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Let me make it clear, I understand the above points.
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.

No, I brought in relevent points which you immediately discounted as irrelevent for some reason and are now claiming the conversation has moved on. These points have been in our exchange for so long because you tried to sidestep them. That's why they're relevent.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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

Yes, because subsidiary protection is an important aspect of it. Over 1 in 5 Syrians will still be granted asylum, just not through the refugee process. This is a very significant number. Why are you so dismissive of subsidiary protection?

Lockstep

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No there isn't.
I'm only talking about people getting refugee status.
That's what the press releases are talking about, when they mention the 90% figure and that's what on the Department of Justices website.

Why on earth would you solely limit to those able to claim refugee status? Those granted subsidiary protection are just as deserving of asylum status as refugees.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Because you have to be a failed asylum seeker before your subsidiary application claim will be considered; source.
That and subsidiary protection is considered more temporary.

They get all the same rights as refugees for three years and their claim is renewable. Even before their second term is up, they'd then be eligible for citizenship.

Lockstep

jmayo wrote: »

Can I ask the pro refugee posters (for want of a better word to describe them including the mods who are weighing in heavily in this argument) a few questions.

1. We are supposed to take in 4,000 right.
Does this mean we only take 4,000 in total from either other European countries or camps in Jordan, Lebannon, etc ?
What if someone ends up at Dublin ariport and asked for asylum, does that mean we now only have 3,999 places for the others ?

As it's part of an EU-wide plan to settle refugees, the refugees will be those taken from Greece, Italy and Hungary. As such, if a refugee manages to arrive in Ireland, they'll be treated separately but won't be able to avail of the special conditions open to the 4000 (fast tracked review, etc)

jmayo wrote: »

2. Are we going to take in 4,000 next year and the year after, because lets face the flood aint going to stop anytime soon unless miracle cures are found for Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. should be a max number and what should it be ?

There definitely should be a maximum number: we don't have unlimited resources. That said, given I'm not an economist or migration expert, I'd be reluctant to pick a figure out of the air. Considering our population size, the number specified seems like a reasonable amount, allowing for family reunification.

jmayo wrote: »

3. Do posters have a pecking order of refugee worthiness i.e. Syrians (and then which ones, as in Shia, Kurds, Alawis, Druze. Christians), Iraqi, Eritrean, Sudanese, Afghani, Libyan, etc, etc?

No. If someone is entitled to claim asylum, they're entitled to claim asylum. We'll be taking Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans. These people all deserve asylum.

jmayo wrote: »

4. How do they think these 4,000 plus people should be integrated into Irish society ?
Do they think they should be plonked in one area (should we deem one city/ town in Ireland should become our Marseille or Blackburn) or spread throughout the country ?

I'm not an expert but they'd probably be better off being spread throughout the country so nowhere has a disproportionate burden.

jackofalltrades

Lockstep wrote: »

No, I brought in relevent points which you immediately discounted as irrelevent for some reason and are now claiming the conversation has moved on. These points have been in our exchange for so long because you tried to sidestep them. That's why they're relevent.

Because they were.
We were having a discussion on the specific point of what method would be used to select asylum seekers.
I gave a guess and then you replied with this post.

Lockstep wrote:

Doubtful. Self-declared is a possibility but I can't see why refugees would bother lying to the UNHCR.

You're acting like I have to acknowledge ever point you make, no matter what it's relevance to the discussion.

And if you want to accuse people of sidestepping you'd want to make sure that you've answered all of their questions first.
Did you see me bringing that question up all the time?

jackofalltrades

Lockstep wrote: »

Yes, because subsidiary protection is an important aspect of it. Over 1 in 5 Syrians will still be granted asylum, just not through the refugee process. This is a very significant number. Why are you so dismissive of subsidiary protection?

Why on earth would you solely limit to those able to claim refugee status? Those granted subsidiary protection are just as deserving of asylum status as refugees.

I've already explained this repeatedly.
I think you're deliberately straw-manning at this stage to appear like you have a rebuttal to the point, when you don't.
So I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any more.

Lockstep

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Because they were.
We were having a discussion on the specific point of what method would be used to select asylum seekers.
I gave a guess and then you replied with this post.

You're acting like I have to acknowledge ever point you make, no matter what it's relevance to the discussion.

Yes, you brought up the claim that 30% of people claiming to be Syrian are not actually Syrian. I highlighted the UNHCR's figures (which show a majority, not even a plurality) of arrivals being Syrian. It's doubtful they'd be lying about their nationality to the UNHCR as it is not responsible for their asylum applications.
Are you honestly saying this isn't relevant in a discussion on the numbers of refugees who are Syrian?

If you don't want to respond to something, that's totally fine. It's a very long post. But you can't try to disregard evidence for being "irrelevant" when it clearly is.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

And if you want to accuse people of sidestepping you'd want to make sure that you've answered all of their questions first.
Did you see me bringing that question up all the time?

What did I sidestep in that post?

Lockstep

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I've already explained this repeatedly.
I think you're deliberately straw-manning at this stage to appear like you have a rebuttal to the point, when you don't.
So I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any more.

Please explain one more time then. I'm not aware of you having addressed this already. Subsidiary protection is a very vital aspect of asylum law: even if someone is not entitled to refugee status, they can still be entitled to asylum under subsidiary protection which grants essentially identical protections, rights and entitlements as that of refugee status (aside from the fact it's renewable)

You were the one who brought up claims that only 73% of Syrians are getting refugee status. This is true but also misleading and dishonest as you're ignoring that an additional 22% of asylum seekers are still granted asylum.
Only 5% of Syrians are denied asylum. No matter how much you try and spin or obfuscate, you cannot change this.

K-9

jmayo wrote: »

Can I ask the pro refugee posters (for want of a better word to describe them including the mods who are weighing in heavily in this argument) a few questions.

Mods often post as normal users in threads. You are around ages and have been involved in plenty of threads before with mods posting as regular users over the years. Any more questions about mods and moderation take it up on the discussion on the rules thread or pm us. Thanks.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Its friday night folks, dont awaken the beast.

Will reopen when ive figured out whats gone wrong. I may never figure that out.