ButtersSuki wrote: » I'll be reading dat after the show so to speak.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » Asylum seekers are not entitled to Child Benefit. They do, however, receive a payment of €15.60 per week per child. If you think anyone is turning a profit out of €140 per month, let alone a mere €15.60 per week per child, I have to genuinely ask whether you are aware of the costs of raising a child? From that €15.60, a person living in Direct Provision is obliged for all of the child's needs aside from shelter and the main meals. They have to try to pay for their own children's school expenses and clothing, just like everybody else. In some cases, the child in question is an Irish citizen. This is a pretty appalling state of affairs, and I do think it's something this Society will be condemned for in coming years, and we deserve that. If someone spends 8 years in Direct Provision, and therefore barred from working, is it any wonder that when they are finally naturalised, they are not particularly employable? We are shooting ourselves in the foot with this ludicrous policy of prohibiting access to work. Anyone can come to this country on a student visa, enrol in a cheap English-language course, and can automatically work part-time. Why can we not allow asylum seekers to work, even part-time, after a year has elapsed in their application. Our policy is a large part of the reason these individuals often end up unemployed. Well, yes. They do get it wrong. The Court have fired several shots across the bows, telling the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to get its act together. We have one of the worst records worldwide for refusing asylum claims, compared to other countries per head of population. The population of Norway is similar to ours, yet it grants twenty times the amount of asylum applications we do. Norway is widely recognized as a template for asylum and integration. But it's not only that we're not as good as Norway. Backwaters like Jordan, Burundi and Rwanda put us to shame, in their willingness to grant asylum. So yes, they do get it wrong, and have been repeatedly criticized by the courts for their inconsistency and irrational decisions. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal is comprised of part-time decision-makers, with no specialist training, who are typically party hacks
ButtersSuki wrote: » Won't be in today folks, "enjoy" your last Lahv Lahn before tomorrow's Funny Fryday on a Turrsday so to speak.
HeidiHeidi wrote: » Haven't been listening in lately (see, I AM cured ), but have been keeping up via all of you lot. What odds for this to feature today?http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/09/21/local-like-you/http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0921/818071-kilmuckridge-wexford-garda/ It has Joe and Da Lahvline written all over it.
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » Yes it would be ideal for him, he will chat about the poooooor poooooor small busineses struggling and won't at all ask any of the hard questions like did they borrow way too much money that it would never have been possible to ever repay or were they just greedy and lost at the casino of business so to speak.
sligojoek wrote: » More direct provision, by the looks of things. And if that doesn't cheer us up we have violent autistic children.
CarrickMcJoe wrote: » More all right but with a councillor who complained about These People having to travel through many different countries to get here. He's on lave for slaughter.
Oops69 wrote: » Has joe had any of the mangers of these centres on to give a right to reply ?
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » A refugee from South Korea, wtf?
Itssoeasy wrote: » Jesus direct provision. Not that I don't feel for the people as direct provision sounds horrible but what is joes angle here ?
TheHomeService wrote: » The Ghoul is at it again. Digging for detail that is both irrelevant and insensitive. I still find it hard to imagine asylum seekers from South Korea, by the way.
