Nodin wrote: » You mean playing populist reactionary politics with the issue.
AlekSmart wrote: » Yep,the larger clue is in the Populist bit..as in Popular...as in a Policy favoured by the majority of voters. Otherwise it would have to be UNpopulist,reactionary politics ? Or is it perhaps,the actual Politics bit that causes the issue ?
alastair wrote: » FF were/are a pretty typical example of populist politics. Political populism is no guarantee of effectiveness, consideration, or intended outcomes.
AlekSmart wrote: » Well afaik,there's no great FF presence in Australia...politically speaking anyway. My point is that Populist may not sound great,but if it accurately reflects the wishes of the majority of the electorate,it becomes Democratic. I'm uncertain as to whether there's a suggestion that the new Australian policy is somehow UN-democratic ?
alastair wrote: » I think we're all aware FF aren't Australian. My, point, in case you missed it, is that populist politics are no guarantee of effectiveness, consideration, or intended outcomes. You appear to believe that popular reactionary policies have some intrinsic merit. Nobody suggested that the Australian policy was undemocratic - not sure where you got that from.
AlekSmart wrote: » We sure have moved a long way in this thread already...Kinsale to Cambodia...goes to show the extent of the problem ?
rgossip30 wrote: » I am not sure why the debate has moved to discussing Australia's asylum system . The only relevance is that you take away the attraction and numbers seeking asylum drops. There are no statistics for those granted refugee status that actually work ? We must assume that is a low figure or there would be some praising/glorifying them for contributing to Irish society.
Nodin wrote: » You seem to be under the impression that just because something is popular, it is somehow objectively 'correct'. Nor would it necessarily meet our international obligations.
AlekSmart wrote: » Another impression I "seem" to be under is that "Meeting our International Obligations" is the sole criteria by which some folk judge their Countrys condition. Ireland has met,and exceeded,it's "International Obligations" regarding Asylum provision for a lot longer than the allegations of it NOT doing so have been loudly proclaimed. It may be worth associating with some of those who,in the past, have benefited from Irelands realistically applied systems before seeking it's dis-assembly and replacement by something more...erm...."Populist" ?
Nodin wrote: » No idea what you're on about.
AlekSmart wrote: » Ireland has met,and exceeded,it's "International Obligations" regarding Asylum provision for a lot longer than the allegations of it NOT doing so have been loudly proclaimed. ?
walshb wrote: » + 1 It's as clear as day what you're on about!
Nodin wrote: » No goalposts were moved. What about them?
alastair wrote: » We've comparatively few asylum applicants, and far fewer successful asylum applicants, so yes - it's a low figure, whether in employment, or not. Don't know why you assume anything beyond that.
jank wrote: » Sigh,your one liners and failure to see basic arguments on their own is tiring Nodin. Wont be responding to you again in this thread.
Think Im Sarcastic? Watch Me Pretend To Care!
rgossip30 wrote: » The refugees that get Irish citizenship can also apply for family reunification. This adds to the figure .
rgossip30 wrote: » Your opinion seems to be that its fine if refugees do not work does this apply to Irish citizens too ?
alastair wrote: » This adds a smaller figure to the small figure. Sure. You're still left with a small figure. That's my opinion, is it? Where did you get that from?
rgossip30 wrote: » The cost of this 'small' figure 150 million +equals the proposed take from the water rate.http://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-cost-1670088-Sep2014/ Your posts . ' it's a low figure, whether in employment or not ' You suggest as its a low figure it does not matter.
alastair wrote: » What exactly has the cost of direct provision got to do with the numbers of those offered asylum, and whether they're in, or out of work? By law, everyone in direct provision is unable to seek work. So, if you're asking about figures regarding employment there, it would be 100% out of work.
rgossip30 wrote: » 100% is not correct some do work for cash .
rgossip30 wrote: » The number of asylum seekers has increased 40% this year. This is in turn adds to the refugee population.
rgossip30 wrote: » The cost of social welfare for those refugee's not working can be added to the bill.
rgossip30 wrote: » The refugee population is small as a result of recent Irish citizenship ceremonies.
rgossip30 wrote: » Those granted Irish citizenship apply for family reunification .
alastair wrote: » They do? How would you know this? You agree they do work. I know from TV newspapers and first hand. No they haven't. Please don't make up figures.http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/orac-stats_13-en I suggest you look at Orac its 35% increase on Jan to July 2013 and its estimated to increase to at least 40% by the year end. Added to what bill? What number of refugees aren't working? Cost to the exchequer as a percentage of total social welfare outgoings? Yes the tax payer. There are no figures for refugees who work I stated this before. No idea what you're trying to say here. When refugees are granted citizenship they are not regarded as refugees for statistics . The number then drops a convenient way to hide the true figure of non eu former asylum seekers living here . They can, and some do. So?
rgossip30 wrote: » This increases the non European population.
rgossip30 wrote: » They can apply for council housing adding to the already high numbers 90K on the waiting list .
rgossip30 wrote: » http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/orac...ac-stats_13-en I suggest you look at Orac its 35% increase on Jan to July 2013 and its estimated to increase to at least 40% by the year end.
rgossip30 wrote: » When refugees are granted citizenship they are not regarded as refugees for statistics . The number then drops a convenient way to hide the true figure of non eu former asylum seekers living here .
alastair wrote: » I suggest you look at the date on those figures. They're for last year (2013). For 2014, total applications for the first 6 months are 597, so an increase so far, but nowhere near 40% - even if you assume that increase sustains for the full year.
AlekSmart wrote: » I took the OP's reference to be the current YTD situation. I would suggest that the second half of 2014 may see an increase in that rate of acceleration as the Syrian/ISIS and West African Ebola situations worsen. So on those two situations alone,I'd go with that 40%. (The Ebola situation alone certainly will present us with new challenges should it surface on the list of oppressive situations).
alastair wrote: » And for those of us without crystal balls, it's a bit harder to justify a claim of a 40% increase.
