Ireland's asylum hotel monthly bill tops €3.54m

Sonny noggs

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

That your story is largely unreadable gibberish? Congrats to anyone (not me) who decided to read that whole random, and pointless blurb of word vomit.

I found his story easy to read and comprehend plus it was far more plausible than your fairy tale. His story also suggests the doctors and engineers line we were fed by Merkel and co may well be true after all.

Boggles

joseywhales wrote: »

I was glad to see a positive story from the Irish asylum seeking system in Ireland.

It just shows that there is great potential human resources coming from places like syria, where young smart hard working families are begging for an opportunity to thrive, despite language and public perception obstacles. Fair play to those that supported this family.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/student-who-came-to-ireland-from-syria-with-little-english-gets-602-leaving-cert-points-1.3990071

Amazing. To think only a few years ago she could only point at eggs.

mynamejeff

punisher5112 wrote: »

Just because one person doesn't see it, that doesn't make it untrue....

and just because some one makes up a pure fantasy doesn't make it true or believable in any way .....

4068ac1elhodqr

Boggles wrote: »

Amazing. To think only a few years ago she could only point at eggs.

Incorrect, it said she had 'basic English skills', unlike the chap I met.

Also if you take anyone at an (genuine) early age (not like some new students in the uk with beards), and place in 'full-time' free education with every enhancement, additional language training, and every special support available, then potential to prosper is always there.

In this particular (singular) case it seems to have worked out well, and naturally should be encouraged if school places, and support is easily available.

Particularly encouraging is the movation to increase integration by become fluent, an essential requirement of course. In Denmark this often has to be forced with fiscal penalties if the motivation isn't present to do so.

However, if you place an adult lad in his late 20s with little support, no education and that has to resort to pointing to and asking strangers to get groceries from a small shop, then you have to honestly ask what is their likely outcome.

Bear in mind jobs for young-ish unskilled males with no literacy/education will be twice as difficult to come by in the 2030's as they are now.

punisher5112

mynamejeff wrote: »

and just because some one makes up a pure fantasy doesn't make it true or believable in any way .....

And how do you know that???

Are you a judge and jury and executioner?

mynamejeff

punisher5112 wrote: »

And how do you know that???

Are you a judge and jury and executioner?

Aw would you stop it was like a Ann and Barry story and every one here has seen if for that as expected

if you cant accept your mistakes you ll never move past them kid

punisher5112

mynamejeff wrote: »

Aw would you stop it was like a Ann and Barry story and every one here has seen if for that as expected

if you cant accept your mistakes you ll never move past them kid

Eh

s7ryf3925pivug

Well Syrian refugees should be welcomed and helped.

I think most people who take issue are concerned with the fake refugees from safe places, some of whom are fleeing prosecution rather than persecution.

punisher5112

Anahi Hollow Bison wrote: »

Well Syrian refugees should be welcomed and helped.

I think most people who take issue are concerned with the fake refugees from safe places, some of whom are fleeing prosecution rather than persecution.

How many?

How many can this little island honestly take?put them? Feed them? Clothe them? Health care? Money? When do we stop?

Blueshoe

Anahi Hollow Bison wrote: »

Well Syrian refugees should be welcomed and helped.

I think most people who take issue are concerned with the fake refugees from safe places, some of whom are fleeing prosecution rather than persecution.

https://laois-nationalist.ie/2019/08/15/first-four-houses-for-syrian-refugees-ready/

They are being helped.

Pa ElGrande

You may be interested to follow this trend because it will affect Ireland in the context of the largest EU governments wish to distribute the migrants in order to scale and placate the local populations.


The Coming Migration out of Sub-Saharan Africa
Christopher Caldwell, August 8, 2019

That is only the beginning of the problem. The population pressures emanating from the Middle East in recent decades, already sufficient to drive the European political system into convulsions, are going to pale beside those from sub-Saharan Africa in decades to come. Salvini owes his rise — and his party’s mighty victory in May’s elections to the European Union parliament — to his willingness to address African migration as a crisis. Even mentioning it makes him almost alone among European politicians. Those who are not scared to face the problem are scared to avow their conclusions.


source

joseywhales

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

Incorrect, it said she had 'basic English skills', unlike the chap I met.

Also if you take anyone at an (genuine) early age (not like some new students in the uk with beards), and place in 'full-time' free education with every enhancement, additional language training, and every special support available, then potential to prosper is always there.

In this particular (singular) case it seems to have worked out well, and naturally should be encouraged if school places, and support is easily available.

Particularly encouraging is the movation to increase integration by become fluent, an essential requirement of course. In Denmark this often has to be forced with fiscal penalties if the motivation isn't present to do so.

However, if you place an adult lad in his late 20s with little support, no education and that has to resort to pointing to and asking strangers to get groceries from a small shop, then you have to honestly ask what is their likely outcome.

Bear in mind jobs for young-ish unskilled males with no literacy/education will be twice as difficult to come by in the 2030's as they are now.

I am not understanding why the jobs market will preference females over males in the future, that would be a serious trend change. I can see your point about unskilled labour finding employment difficult (though there is an incorrect assumption that all immigrant labour is unskilled, perhaps based on your (singular) example which is unverified by the national press), however there is a requirement for young labour given the aging demographics across developed countries, so either we incentivise people having larger families or we can have a mutually beneficial immigration policy, including asylum, which supports our economy and provides opportunity to raw human resources. This is my economic argument, notice, I do not care about moral judgement of being kind to your neighbor etc.

punisher5112

When we have another recession how will we continue to pay?

joseywhales

I think the mechanics of asylum should change, keeping people in direct provision for so long just breaks their motivation to start a new life in a new country, sitting in limbo and being forced to be dependant helps nobody.

They should be allowed to and encouraged to seek work immediately while they are in process. It's what 99% of them want and it's obviously more cost effective.

punisher5112

joseywhales wrote: »

I think the mechanics of asylum should change, keeping people in direct provision for so long just breaks their motivation to start a new life in a new country, sitting in limbo and being forced to be dependant helps nobody.

They should be allowed to and encouraged to seek work immediately while they are in process. It's what 99% of them want and it's obviously more cost effective.

99% is a big ask

4068ac1elhodqr

joseywhales wrote: »

I am not understanding why the jobs market will preference females over males in the future, that would be a serious trend change.

You are confusing/brushing over the matter by not referring to the area of 'unskilled' which is the only sector that will have a preference for females over males.

Ttypically the care industry, admin/office support etc. Regular male roles such as warehousing and dumb manual grunt tasks are much, much easier to automate as the require little people interaction or fidelity of emotional inteligence.

joseywhales wrote: »

I can see your point about unskilled labour finding employment difficult though there is an incorrect assumption that all immigrant labour is unskilled...

You are confusing/brushing over the matter by tring to draw away from the isuse that illegal econominc/welfare migration.
Highly skilled migrants have no need to pay illegal people traffickers 10k. they apply directly for the correct visa, get it, and are always most very welcome indeed by any country on the planet.

joseywhales wrote: »

...given the aging demographics across developed countries, so either we incentivise people having larger families

Wrong again, the 4th Industrial Reveloution (automation) is more likely to require less human resources than currently.

The only resources with a fighting chance by the 2030's will be very highly literate, educated and experienced individuals. Boris's new points system is an early demonstration of things to come.

joseywhales wrote: »

or we can have a mutually beneficial immigration policy, including asylum, which supports our economy and provides opportunity to raw human resources.

Aslyum is of no fiscal benefit, (except for hoteliers) it is charity (at best) when 90% of applicants are rejected it is also largely ungenuine.

By all means genuine cases can and should be helped e.g. Syrians. Most are not from active war zones however. Some of these may propsper others will become chairty cases. The issue remains of credentials and sincerity of cases.

Without improvement (e.g. stopping sham marriges), it will likely become a steaming mess of tax drain and further social abrasion. Just ask people what the think about someone rubber stamping 1,000 illegal cases, or the others from SE Asia that had taxi licences handed out via acts of forgery.

SchrodingersCat

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

Wrong again, the 4th Industrial Reveloution (automation) is more likely to require less human resources than currently.

Industrial revolutions didnt reduce the number of human resources. They moved them into new roles. The automation of farm machinery, for example, moved workers into the textile industries in the cities.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

Aslyum is of no fiscal benefit (except for hoteliers)

This is really not true. Think about this logically. It costs an economy to raise a person to working age. It costs them again during their retirement. It gets its return when they are of working age. Typically refugees are of working age and well before they have to retire. So its a win win for an economy. Nature published an article on this that included figures from Ireland:

The study finds that soon after a spike in migration, the overall strength and sustainability of the country’s economy improves and unemployment rates drop. Its conclusions contradict the idea that refugees place an excessive financial burden on a country by sucking up public resources.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05507-0

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

90% of [asylum] applicants are rejected it is also largely ungenuine.

It was already shown in this thread using Irish government figures that this is incorrect. 70% of Asylum seekers claim are rejected. 90% of Albanians are rejected. 90% of Syrians applications were accepted in 2018 and allowed to work and stay in the country. Neither does an applicant have to be in an active war zone to be accepted as a refugee.

SchrodingersCat

Allinall wrote: »

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

Met a poor Syrian lad in the corner shop pointing to a packet of eggs last year, took 10mins to work out he wanted some eggs bought, no problem he looked underfed so handed them to him outside. Better a packet of eggs than a shandy anyway.

Fellow points at some eggs and it took 10 minutes to work out what he wanted?

What did they think he wanted? Washing powder?

Probably an Irish shop assistant.

I am confused by this story too.

enricoh

Someone posted in another thread on the economic benefit/drain of migration on the uk in the last 20? Years iirc.
Migrants from eu countries were net contributors to the economy.
From non eu it was unbelievable how much they had cost the taxpayer.

Maybe someone can post a link, I'll have a goo for it later

4068ac1elhodqr

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Industrial revolutions didnt reduce the number of human resources .

You are using an old simple (simpleton) reference to previous examples from long ago. The past does not equate the future. Have you read anything about the calculated effects of automation?

You are ignoring many factors from globalisation of services, self-learning technology, ai and automation that can actually build, service, repair and very importantly: learn or improve by itself. Add in the mix the unique additional threats of brexit (-100k jobs) and pending loss of the low corp tax monopoly.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Typically refugees are of working age and well before they have to retire. So its a win win for an economy.

This is really not true, think about it logically. You're importing (in terms of false asylum) people of welfare age, going straight to welfare/provision. Then collecting their golden pensions before too long without contribution. These are also largely uneducated, unskilled and illiterate folks. There is the very odd exception, but on average its charity or a goodwill gesture. The optimal age would actually be very young teens so they can avail of a good free education system (if places exist).

Again you are trying to misdirect by refering to general migration (skilled visas), which are fine. But (again) has got zero to do with looking after people fished out of the sea, or that jump out of the back of trucks Galway or Laois.

I find this very, very ungenuine of you to continue to misdirect in such a way.
It's also clear for anyone to see that you fail to seperate the two occurances of : Skilled legal migration VS illegal false asylum applications.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

It was already shown in this thread using Irish government figures that this is incorrect. 70% of Asylum seekers claim are rejected. 90% of Albanians are rejected. 90% of Syrians applications were accepted in 2018 and allowed to work and stay in the country. Neither does an applicant have to be in an active war zone to be accepted as a refugee.

Problem is Syrians are the most genuine, but also one of the smallest groups. It's far more likely it is being attempted from the entire African(or sub-saharan) contenent, and specifiic Asian areas of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Just take a look at the recent sham marrgie illegal migration patterns, and taxi licence fraudsters which specifically involve SE Asia.

SchrodingersCat

History is studied for a very good reason: we learn from it. This includes the previous industrial revolutions.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

You're importing (in terms of false asylum) people of welfare age, going straight to welfare/provision. Then collecting their golden pensions before too long without contribution. These are also largely uneducated, unskilled and illiterate folks.

Before we can consider this view, you will need to provide a reputable source that asylum seekers go straight onto welfare and then pension in Ireland without working. You also need to provide a source that asylum seekers are uneducated, unskilled and illiterate.

Carl Puny Garlic wrote: »

you are trying to misdirect by refering to general migration (skilled visas), which are fine. But (again) has got zero to do with looking after people fished out of the sea, or that jump out of the back of trucks Galway or Laois.

I assume when you reference "people fished out of the sea" you mean the Syrians in the Mediterranean. These have the highest probability of becoming refugees at 90%. We gave refugee status to 389 of them in 2018, the largest number of any nationality. I was referencing your comment "Aslyum is of no fiscal benefit" when I quoted the study in Nature that said:

The study finds that soon after a spike in migration, the overall strength and sustainability of the country’s economy improves and unemployment rates drop. Its conclusions contradict the idea that refugees place an excessive financial burden on a country by sucking up public resources.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05507-0

mvl

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

H
I was referencing your comment "Aslyum is of no fiscal benefit" when I quoted the study in Nature that said:
The study finds that soon after a spike in migration, the overall strength and sustainability of the country’s economy improves and unemployment rates drop. Its conclusions contradict the idea that refugees place an excessive financial burden on a country by sucking up public resources.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05507-0

But don't mix up in same statistic immigrants (EU, non EU, but legal immigrants one would expect benefit economies from the beginning) with asylum seekers - as this study you are linking seems to do.

This thread is about refugees. So on this, of value in your link is the statement " Asylum seekers also benefit economies, but their effects take longer to transpire — from three to seven years — and the boon is less obvious."

Was wondering, was there any housing crisis in any of the countries studied between 1985 - 2015 ?
Anyway, if we were to look into translating this period of time into costs for Irish budget - there is only a limited number that can remain at any time, cause there are limits on Ireland's (charity) budget.

Blueshoe

Can they not just be given houses by the government?
That would end this monthly waste of money.

nkl12xtw5goz70

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

The study finds that soon after a spike in migration, the overall strength and sustainability of the country’s economy improves and unemployment rates drop.

This is quite disingenuous, suggesting that migrants cause a country's economy to strengthen.

In reality, it's not that migrants make an economy stronger, but that migrants are attracted to already prospering economies. Consider that in 1993, only 91 foreign nationals claimed asylum in the Republic of Ireland. In 2002, just nine years later, 11,634 claimed asylum.

Clearly, asylum seekers were not attracted to the basket-case economy of Ireland in the early 1990s. They were far more attracted to the rapidly expanding economy of the Celtic Tiger.

4068ac1elhodqr

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

The study finds that soon after a spike in migration, the overall strength and sustainability of the country’s economy improves.

Again absoloutely disingenuous (and embarrasing) to continue your agenda of clear distortion. Caused by directly equating the (very welcome) highly skilled, highly educated (legal and documented) visa migration pathway. This is even something Boris can't wait to impliment at full gusto and asap...

...as being the same thing as encouraging illiterate, uneducated, unskilled, illegal fruits of people trafficking to a welfare state. And this as 100,000 jobs are due to be lost from Oct31 (an event itself caused by mass migration). Then later a potential global recession (even Germany is looking at negative growth) and also likely tax harmonisation, therby removing the key USP.

And that's even before highlighting your demonstrated clear unread ignorance, surrounding the impact of the three automation waves unpon the unskilled workforce.

SchrodingersCat

mvl wrote: »

But don't mix up in same statistic immigrants (EU, non EU, but legal immigrants one would expect benefit economies from the beginning) with asylum seekers - as this study you are linking seems to do.

That is incorrect. The study does not mix these up.
The researchers looked separately at the effects of migrants — who are legally allowed to settle in a country — and asylum seekers who reside temporarily in a nation while their applications for refugee status are processed.

mvl wrote: »

This thread is about refugees. So on this, of value in your link is the statement " Asylum seekers also benefit economies, but their effects take longer to transpire — from three to seven years — and the boon is less obvious."

This is correct. The benefit does take longer. If you complete your quote, they explain why:
Asylum seekers also benefit economies, but their effects take longer to transpire — from three to seven years — and the boon is less obvious. Unlike migrants, people seeking refuge often face restrictions on working, and must move to another country if their applications for permanent residency are denied.

If we need quicker benefit from asylum seekers, we should make it as easy for them to work as normal migrants while their application is being processed.

mvl wrote: »

Was wondering, was there any housing crisis in any of the countries studied between 1985 - 2015 ?

Yes, as one example, Italian properties went up by 70% from 1998 to 2008.

Callan Delightful Sociology wrote: »

This is quite disingenuous, suggesting that migrants cause a country's economy to strengthen.

In reality, it's not that migrants make an economy stronger, but that migrants are attracted to already prospering economies. Consider that in 1993, only 91 foreign nationals claimed asylum in the Republic of Ireland. In 2002, just nine years later, 11,634 claimed asylum.

This is not a fair analysis. The studies model takes a prospering economy into account. It looks at the "shock", i.e., external influences such as migrants/asylum seekers had on the economies.

mvl

joseywhales wrote: »

They should be allowed to and encouraged to seek work immediately while they are in process. It's what 99% of them want and it's obviously more cost effective.

But do you know what type of jobs/facilities are available where they are hosted ?

For example, if they bring them in lets say places like Laois, it might end up like Cllr Brendan Phelan is saying "“There’s nothing in Rathdowney for them. There will be young fellas walking up and down the street, wondering where have they been landed”"

nkl12xtw5goz70

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

This is not a fair analysis. The studies model takes a prospering economy into account. It looks at the "shock", i.e., external influences such as migrants/asylum seekers had on the economies.

What's not fair about what I wrote? How do you explain the dramatic increase in asylum seekers to Ireland from 91 in 1993 to 11,634 in 2002?

The number of asylum seekers has tended to correlate both to the ease of gaining right to remain in the country and to its overall economic health. After the state decided to challenge the right of asylum seekers to stay in Ireland if they had an Irish-born child, the planeloads of heavily pregnant asylum seekers entering the country declined precipitously. However, the numbers of asylum seekers remained around 4,000 per year in the mid-2000s.

After the Irish economy went into severe recession post-2008, the numbers of asylum seekers curiously dropped to under 1,000 per year. As the Irish economy recovered, the number of asylum seekers curiously rose back up again, reaching around 3,300 by 2015. As the Irish economy has continued to perform strongly, there was a 27% increase in the number of asylum seekers to Ireland in 2018 -- despite a decline across the EU as a whole. Again, very curious trends.

These correlations strongly suggest that asylum seekers are attracted to a country with good economic prospects, as opposed to an influx of asylum seekers somehow creating economic growth.

SchrodingersCat

Callan Delightful Sociology wrote: »

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Callan Delightful Sociology wrote: »

This is quite disingenuous, suggesting that migrants cause a country's economy to strengthen.
In reality, it's not that migrants make an economy stronger, but that migrants are attracted to already prospering economies.

This is not a fair analysis. The studies model takes a prospering economy into account. It looks at the "shock", i.e., external influences such as migrants/asylum seekers had on the economies.

What's not fair about what I wrote?

You wrote that report is being disingenuous when it says that migrants cause a countries economy to strengthen. You said that the report doesnt take prospering economies into account when it does. That is an unfair analysis.

4068ac1elhodqr

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

If we need quicker benefit from asylum seekers, we should make it as easy for them to work as normal migrants while their application is being processed.

The only thing this will do will lead to (another) massive increase in applicants.

Essentially you want a removal of borders and bright green light to illegal people traffickers. This could be on the cards anyway due to the uk's big rush to impliment their new points system. Lets hope they hire extra border staff, come Oct31.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

...when it says that migrants cause a countries economy to strengthen. ...

Migrants? as in illegal economic non-eu migrants / or actual skilled eu/intl migrants?
The latter make the effort to apply (legally) in due process, with goodwill and a solid foundation for good future. Not paying a gang 10k for passage across the continent towards nw-europe.

You have a habit of mixing the two together, hope you don't put diesel in a petrol car. One fuel will get you places, the other may wreck your engine.