"Asylum seeker" defrauded state of €280 thousand

ScumLord wrote: »

Given that you say the new ID caught this guy out it seems like the solution is already in place.


It may not have been his fault. As long as these people know the weaknesses in the system it can be hard for what is probably a paper pusher to be able to spot them. There could be all sorts of policies that focus on the paperwork over any other facts and if the persons job is to process paperwork they probably don't have time to investigate possible false claims, that's likely someone else job.

He was caught for claiming Social Welfare under two identities not for a false asylum claim. It beggars belief that our asylum system cannot even verify paperwork supposedly sourced in a European country. What hope have we when confronted by applications from failed states in Africa and the Middle East?

Also, if we are accepting 'refugees' from Romania, we may as well abandon any screening for Africans and Middle Easterners.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Great this fella was caught.

Now one question

The Irish government will have most peoples faces on record from 16 now. Where does the law stand on using this kind of stuff if they know your PPS Number or name. Will this be readily Available to the Garda ?

I like to think so. However, given that it takes a couple of months of form filling and document supplying to process a Jobseeker's Benefit claim when all the information is already on the Revenue systems, I wouldn't be holding out much hope.

I think it's disgraceful but I also feel it's a bit rich of us to throw the first stone when many of our own are just as bad.

The dole queues are filled with Irish people claiming money they aren't entitled too and refusing to work for no other reason than laziness.

Deal with the home grown fraudsters first would be my suggestion.

Clampdown wrote: »

Apple owes us 19 billion and our government won't take it.

No it doesn't, firstly the 19 Billion is an estimate and not based on anything factual, secondly if we were to recoup that money all the countries where the profits were generated would be coming to us looking for their share which would probably cost us money in the long run as we'd need to outsource the operation to Dennis O'Brien which would probably cost us a few hundred million.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

After hours post - "asylum seekers without definite proof of who they are should be given hundreds of thousands of euros"





Insurance forum post "people with soft tissue injuries shouldn't even get a few hundred euro as they have no cast iron proof of the injury"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102549152&postcount=21


:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

What has the second post got to do with the first?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he applied for asylum before Romania joined the EU.

And was Romania not a European country before joining the EU? What exactly is your point?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

scammers should be rewarded, legitimate insurance claimants should be punished.

It's called a contradiction. And it indicates the type of poster behind it.

I said nothing of the sort in either post, quite the opposite in fact.

Of course this 'Asylum Seeker' should be punished.

I just don't like how people act like it's only foreigners who do this sort of thing.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you seemed to be under the misapprehension that it is still possible for romanians to claim refugee status here. since they joined the EU this is no longer the case.

Sweet Divine Jesus, how did you get that idea from my post? I mean really. Have a look at my post and please explain how you got tha tinterpretation. Iwould be very grateful.

I asked a general question: how was it possible that someone could present documents from a European country and we weren't even able to verify whether or not they were genuine. And what was the point in even looking at people who claim to be from failed African and Middle Eastern countries if we can't carry out simple checks in First World countries. There was absolutely no mention of the EU.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i was responding to the second part of your post. this bit.



I was merely explaining that we do not accept refugees from Romania and have not done so for 10 years.

Pedantic much? The guy was from Romania, a First World European country.

Here is the definition of a refugee: "a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster".

Whether before or after admission to the EU, it is laughable that someone decided this guy fitted those criteria.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

On what grounds ? Is he Roma ?

On the grounds that romania is an EU country. No idea why you brought up the roma thing. romanian<>roma

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out on what Grounds a Non Roma Traveller could claim Refugee status. I think the Roma are a shaky status. Can you lay out what criteria for example he claimed under ?

How would i know what actual criteria he applied under? i dont have access to his records. when he applied Romania was not an EU so he could claim refugee status. I really didnt think my post was that complicated.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Being not part of the EU is not grounds for Asylum. What grounds ? It's a simple Question.

and again i ask you, how the hell should i know what grounds he applied under? It requires knowledge of facts not reported. how is that a "simple question"?