oughterard people - see OP for Mod warning 29/09/19

Eric Cartman

alastair wrote: »

And? Anything to suggest “the vast majority are men 18-30”?
That would be a ‘no’.

when you have men in their teens and 20s pretending to be kids then you do.
also why so many more men than women ? leaving out children theres over 2 adult men for every woman

Spanish Eyes

We are far too soft. Australia doesn't give a hoot about keeping asylum seekers or other messers out.

Is Australia off the map now? I doubt it.

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

when you have men in their teens and 20s pretending to be kids then you do.
also why so many more men than women ? leaving out children theres over 2 adult men for every woman

Where’s your evidence of men older than juvenile age passing themselves off as juveniles here? Anything to suggest it would tilt the statistics into “the vast majority” of asylum seekers being men 18-30? Because all I’m reading here is supposition.

Boggles

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

They give out about the length of time they are in DP but yet nobody mentions the fact that this is because they appeal decisions multiple times up to the highest court in the land and we foot the bill for it.

Where did you read this, have you a link?

Eric Cartman

alastair wrote: »

Where’s your evidence of men older than juvenile age passing themselves off as juveniles here? Anything to suggest it would tilt the statistics into “the vast majority” of asylum seekers being men 18-30? Because all I’m reading here is supposition.

well removing children out of it, men make up more than 70% of the adults in the asylum system, and since you asked :

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/23/home-office-concludes-teenage-asylum-seeker-school-pupil-fact/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48750708

In 2018, almost 3,000 unaccompanied asylum seekers arrived in the UK claiming to be under 18. It's widely accepted that some will be adults posing as children.

Spanish Eyes

alastair wrote: »

Where’s your evidence of men older than juvenile age passing themselves off as juveniles here? Anything to suggest it would tilt the statistics into “the vast majority” of asylum seekers being men 18-30? Because all I’m reading here is supposition.

I think you need to refute it yourself, and not rely on trying to push the problem onto other people.

Men are coming here in their droves. They are possibly encouraged to do so via Facebook anecdotes or WhatsApp messages etc..

Can you deny that most Asylum seekers are male and young enough to understand Social Media and be trafficked? They (anecdotal of course...) have top of the range mobile phones too. But they are destitute. And can still arrive here. Explain that to me.

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well removing children out of it, men make up more than 70% of the adults in the asylum system, and since you asked :

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/23/home-office-concludes-teenage-asylum-seeker-school-pupil-fact/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48750708

This isn’t the U.K. You were talking about the breakdown of asylum seekers in Ireland. And why would you remove children from the equation, other than to support an otherwise unsupportable claim? There’s no evidence that there are any significant numbers of adult asylum seekers passing as minors here. There aren’t even a significant number of unaccompanied minors applying for asylum here (175 last year) - the subset that would presumably encapsulate these supposed ‘fake kids”.

alastair

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think you need to refute it yourself, and not rely on trying to push the problem onto other people.

Men are coming here in their droves. They are possibly encouraged to do so via Facebook anecdotes or WhatsApp messages etc..

Can you deny that most Asylum seekers are male and young enough to understand Social Media and be trafficked? They (anecdotal of course...) have top of the range mobile phones too. But they are destitute. And can still arrive here. Explain that to me.

It’s a nonsense. There’s literally no way to spin the stats to lend any credibility to it.

Who said that asylum seekers are destitute? Some are and some are not. Poverty isn’t a perquisite for seeking asylum. In fact poverty is an irrelevance in claiming asylum.

FeirmeoirtTed

Faugheen wrote: »

My take.

The concerns of the people of Oughterard regarding the availability of services in which to accommodate these asylum seekers is fair and legit in my opinion. Last I heard there was only one GP? What are the state doing to facilitate an influx of up to 250 people? What about the local primary school? Could it take more students? Those issues I actually agree with and the fact that the state is going quietly about this and giving the locals no reassurances would annoy me too.

However, that unsubstantiated claim by Noel Grealish that most African asylum seekers are spongers is not a legitimate concern. It’s at best xenophobic and at worst racist. He has absolutely no proof of that and all it was was rabble rousing bollocks. The fact the usual suspects are saying ‘he’s right’ doesn’t surprise me.

If 70% of asylum seekers have their applications turned down would it not suggest that 70% of them are not legitimate asylum seekers but economic migrants who are looking to live off Irish the welfare system that we all pay for? or is that racist?? Most being the majoirity in this case.

Spanish Eyes

alastair wrote: »

This isn’t the U.K. You were talking about the breakdown of asylum seekers in Ireland. And why would you remove children from the equation, other than to support an otherwise unsupportable claim? There’s no evidence that there are any significant numbers of adult asylum seekers passing as minors here. There aren’t even a significant number of unaccompanied minors applying for asylum here (175 last year) - the subset that would presumably encapsulate these supposed ‘fake kids”.

Forget about the so called children for a moment, and concentrate on the adults who rock up from countries that are not at war for example.

Scams are everywhere as we know, and arriving here is one of them.

I really do hope Government has a handle on this.

Eric Cartman

alastair wrote: »

This isn’t the U.K. You were talking about the breakdown of asylum seekers in Ireland. And why would you remove children from the equation, other than to support an otherwise unsupportable claim? There’s no evidence that there are any significant numbers of adult asylum seekers passing as minors here. There aren’t even a significant number of unaccompanied minors applying for asylum here (175 last year) - the subset that would presumably encapsulate these supposed ‘fake kids”.

well when you are just talking about adults, its over 70% men, putting the children in the equation lowers that number to 51% which is still a majority but looks 'better' its not an unsupportable claim, every single country in the EU that has taken migrants sees the same thing.

Its well known that its a majority young men showing up, its pretty well accepted even in non right wing circles.

Spanish Eyes

alastair wrote: »

It’s a nonsense. There’s literally no way to spin the stats to lend any credibility to it.

Who said that asylum seekers are destitute? Some are and some are not. Poverty isn’t a perquisite for seeking asylum. In fact poverty is an irrelevance in claiming asylum.

They claim destitution. Or flight from oppression.

And we believe them, in you come.

mynamejeff

alastair wrote: »

Where’s your evidence of men older than juvenile age passing themselves off as juveniles here? Anything to suggest it would tilt the statistics into “the vast majority” of asylum seekers being men 18-30? Because all I’m reading here is supposition.

Stats posted above but if you rather first had eyeball evidence why dont you head down to one of the DP centers and see who is comming and going ,

all i see are young healthy looking males


do you know how many (claimed) unaccompanied minors get placed in unsecure accommodation and then vanish to god knows where ?

google missing kids in Ireland and see how many are non nationals.


some how i think that regardless of facts and any kind of evidence placed in front of you you ll just rant and rave regardless.

eh joe

Mr. teddywinkles

alastair wrote: »

Last I noticed Albania was in neither Africa nor the Middle East - which was what the poster referred to. So spare the red herring. Plenty of asylum seekers have their claim rejected, but they’re also not getting free gaffs given to them and all the other guff your ‘not racist’ pal was spouting. They get stuck in DP for the duration and a princely €21 a week for necessities. Any credible ‘spongers’ would make their way to one of the states with more generous welfare provision and better opportunities to work while seeking asylum.

So food, heat, shelter all for 21e a week. Jaysus must pop over to see how they do it. Just what exactly do you think is going to happen if they get accepted into the country. Head down to the bank and take out a mortgage for a gaff.

ThunbergsAreGo

WB Yokes wrote: »

Some fella is now being asked to prove in front of a tribunal that he is a gay man..

https://mobile.twitter.com/masi_asylum/status/1173570549940928512

That twitter page is informative.

So given he can't prove it he should be deported yeah?

Any idea how Ireland was the first safe country he encountered coming from Zimbabwe?

Spanish Eyes

Apart from the UN agreements as to how many refugees from war torn countries we must take in (which I agree with)...

The rest of the chancers are just that, chancers.

As if Ireland was the first place someone from Nigeria or Albania or Georgia or wherever would think of.... honestly it is organised trafficking now.

enricoh

FeirmeoirtTed wrote: »

If 70% of asylum seekers have their applications turned down would it not suggest that 70% of them are not legitimate asylum seekers but economic migrants who are looking to live off Irish the welfare system that we all pay for? or is that racist?? Most being the majoirity in this case.

It was 90 odd %, but the refugee council got a retired judge removed from the panel. He wasnt buying enough of the asylum spoofers stories n got the heave ho. N was replaced by someone more amenable.
Cant recall his name but heard him on local radio lmfm. The radio presenter was expecting him to bemoan the horrors of direct provision, etc etc n didnt know what to say!

WB Yokes

naughtb4 wrote: »

So given he can't prove it he should be deported yeah?

Any idea how Ireland was the first safe country he encountered coming from Zimbabwe?

Is that Dublin regulation just out the window or whats happening there ?

And how does one prove they are a gay man?

This guy shouldnt really have any chance of being granted asylum.

alastair

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Forget about the so called children for a moment, and concentrate on the adults who rock up from countries that are not at war for example.

Scams are everywhere as we know, and arriving here is one of them.

I really do hope Government has a handle on this.

You don’t have to come from a war-torn country to seek asylum.

ThunbergsAreGo

WB Yokes wrote: »

naughtb4 wrote: »

So given he can't prove it he should be deported yeah?

Any idea how Ireland was the first safe country he encountered coming from Zimbabwe?

Is that Dublin regulation just out the window or whats happening there ?

And how does one prove they are a gay man?

This guy shouldnt really have any chance of being granted asylum.

It does seem to be, which as an English speaking nation isn't great for us. Surely that should be one of the first questions asked?

How did you get here? Why didn't you claim asylum in.....?

He seems like a total chancer

Spanish Eyes

alastair wrote: »

You don’t have to come from a war-torn country to seek asylum.

Why Ireland though? An Island out in the wilds of the Atlantic that has no direct flights or ferries from these so called asylum seekers countries of origin?

malinheader

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Why Ireland though? An Island out in the wilds of the Atlantic that has no direct flights or ferries from these so called asylum seekers countries of origin?

Great social welfare benefits and if you're turned down you just keep on appealing till they let you stay. And even if you just decide to stay illegally there is little chance of someone coming looking for you. Great place altogether.

alastair

enricoh wrote: »

It was 90 odd %, but the refugee council got a retired judge removed from the panel. He wasnt buying enough of the asylum spoofers stories n got the heave ho. N was replaced by someone more amenable.
Cant recall his name but heard him on local radio lmfm. The radio presenter was expecting him to bemoan the horrors of direct provision, etc etc n didnt know what to say!

Nonsense. The only retired judge that had any input into the asylum process here was Bryan McMahon - who worked with the Refugee Council, amongst others, to draft the McMahon report. There isn’t any asylum panel that retired judges make decisions on claims. That’s done by international protection officers.

Here’s a synopsis of McMahon’s findings:

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_justice_and_equality/submissions/2019/2019-05-22_opening-statement-dr-bryan-mcmahon-former-judge-of-the-high-court_en.pdf

alastair

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Why Ireland though? An Island out in the wilds of the Atlantic that has no direct flights or ferries from these so called asylum seekers countries of origin?

Asylum claims are made less here than other European countries. And there’s no requirement for direct flights. Why do these constantly debunked arguments keep popping up? The vast majority of successful asylum seekers here didn’t arrive on direct flights - would that not register as having some significance with you?

Spanish Eyes

malinheader wrote: »

Great social welfare benefits and if you're turned down you just keep on appealing till they let you stay. And even if you just decide to stay illegally there is little chance of someone coming looking for you. Great place altogether.

I am not that happy to provide for trafficked asylum seekers at all. We all know it is an organised machine now.

jay0109

alastair wrote: »

Asylum claims are made less here than other European countries. And there’s no requirement for direct flights. Why do these constantly debunked arguments keep popping up? The vast majority of successful asylum seekers here didn’t arrive on direct flights - would that not register as having some significance with you?

:D And don't we know. They come here via other EU countries, mostly the UK.
Does that not register as having some significance with you!

alastair

naughtb4 wrote: »

So given he can't prove it he should be deported yeah?

Any idea how Ireland was the first safe country he encountered coming from Zimbabwe?

There’s no obligation to make your asylum claim in a first safe country. So that’s an irrelevance.

alastair

jay0109 wrote: »

:D And don't we know. They come here via other EU countries, mostly the UK.
Does that not register as having some significance with you!

No. Why would it?

jay0109

alastair wrote: »

No. Why would it?

That says it all really

malinheader

alastair wrote: »

There’s no obligation to make your asylum claim in a first safe country. So that’s an irrelevance.

No.you Head for the one with the most gullible government.