Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mediterranean migrants- specific questions
Options
Comments
-
I don't believe they're done much factoring themselves.The fact that the government said they expect 90% of such intakes to be successful. Presumably they've factored in that some will be from different countries.
They're hardly going to assume that every refugee is where they say they're from.
They seem to be going along with “The expectation across Europe” is that some 90% will qualify as refugees.
Which is why I'm looking for links as to the source of this expectation.
I'm not making assumptions about our Governments behaviour.Ah now. It's a fairly safe bet that the government will be more diligent than automatically accepting wherever asylum seekers say they're from.
Are you honestly trying to argue otherwise? If they did this, we'd have a much more liberal asylum regime than we currently do.
That's why I'm looking for links to find out more detail.
If you're seeing arguments in that they're your own creation.
Thanks for that link.Greece and Hungary mainly. Makes sense, seeing as these are where the refugees are ending up.
Source
Makes sense really as the EU plan is to redistribute those from Greece, Italy and Hungary
It seems the European Commission is going to be running the show.
Whilst liaising with a representative from our country.
"Doubtful. Self-declared is a possibility but I can't see why refugees would bother lying to the UNHCR."You said you were asking why this was relevent. If you're going to bring in the German interior ministry, it seems unlikely when one of their own sources (for their vague and unverifiable estimate) is Frontex. Who'se own sources show a significant plurality are Syrian.
I'm not really sure what your point is here.
This is the bit that I was wondering about.
I have no idea why you included this.0 -
So you at least accept that people from outside the EU can be checked.
sure they can be checked for having fake papers or no papers…though i don’t know what the story is with all those fake passports, like how easy it is to tell a fake from a real one, and they can be fingerprinted…thought the sheer number of arriving migrants doesn’t make things any easier…0 -
You'll pardon me if I refute that devastating critique by pointing out that Iraqis and Syrians are a different people, with a different history, who speak distinctly different dialects of Arabic.
Nonsense. You've totally ignored the points I made.
The Kurds in Iraq have more in common with the Kurds in Syria than they do with other Iraqis
Same goes for the sunnis and shi'tes in both countries.
If you are going to refute my claim then at least show some proof. As I said the French and British drew a fake border line about 100 years ago. Have you looked at the Iraqi/Syria border?
I guess its like saying people from Louth and Armagh speak distinctly different dialects of English and have nothing in common
What a load of nonsense.0 -
-
90% of those granted asylum in Germany are bogus? Did you tell the Germans?
There were circa 200k asylum applications in Germany last year. Two thirds of them were rejected. 10k were deported.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/auslaender-wer-einmal-in-deutschland-ist-wird-selten-abgeschoben-13601134.html
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/auslaender-wer-einmal-in-deutschland-ist-wird-selten-abgeschoben-13601134.html0 -
Advertisement
-
The legal limbo is a perennial problem across all the EU member states. Other countries allow some provision for asylum seekers to work while their claims are being processed (after a year in the UK for example or immediately in Sweden) but we have no such provisions in Ireland. Considering how many people are stuck in direct provision for years on end, it urgently needs reforming. There is an appeals process (Which certainly needs to be kept) but having appeals last for years on end isn't an efficient system, or a humane one.
With a lot of stipulations attached to achieve the right to work. Also, why do you think that there are people stuck in direct provision centres for years? It wouldn't be because they have been refused asylum and are now in the appeals process, would it? They are free to leave at any time. There is even an EU repatriation fund to help them do so.0 -
Are you implying that no refugees will work?
You are aware that stating that Refugees will not work would most certainly be speculation?
I never said that they would not work but they have a lower employment level than natives.
http://www.unhcr.org/5273a9e89.pdf
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/refugees-face-barriers-getting-jobs-to-match-skills-survey-1.1135122
http://rise-project.eu/analysis/0 -
-
Dunno, but seeing as around 93% (between Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis) will be successful, and the government will almost certainly conduct pre-checks on them beforehand, 90% would be a conservative estimate if they don't account for some cases of mistaken nationality. These would be easy enough to check anyway. It's not like a Kosovar could easily pose as an Arab. Although such people are unlikely to be languishing in Greece right now anyway.jackofalltrades wrote: »I don't believe they're done much factoring themselves.
They seem to be going along with “The expectation across Europe” is that some 90% will qualify as refugees.
Which is why I'm looking for links as to the source of this expectation.
It's a government body which routinely deals with immigration and asylum cases. It's a very safe bet they'll be used to this and use appropriate safeguards and preliminary checks. It's not exactly a long stretch to think this.jackofalltrades wrote: »I'm not making assumptions about our Governments behaviour.
That's why I'm looking for links to find out more detail.
If you're seeing arguments in that they're your own creation.
If you want more info on how the government will conduct this, maybe contact INES?
While some refugees might be lying about their nationality, it's unclear why they'd bother doing so to the UNHCR which has no authority to grant asylum. As such, the UNHCR figure of 54% being Syrian is an interesting one.jackofalltrades wrote: »"Doubtful. Self-declared is a possibility but I can't see why refugees would bother lying to the UNHCR."
This is the bit that I was wondering about.
I have no idea why you included this.0 -
And still able to work.With a lot of stipulations attached to achieve the right to work. Also, why do you think that there are people stuck in direct provision centres for years? It wouldn't be because they have been refused asylum and are now in the appeals process, would it? They are free to leave at any time. There is even an EU repatriation fund to help them do so.
This has already been addressed. In the Okunade case, the Supreme Court held a Nigerian woman and her son were entitled to remain in Ireland because they could not be blamed for the long delays in their case: the judge explicitly highlighted that Ireland's complicated and cumbersome asylum laws were to blame. Not people seeking appeals.
If you sought an appeal on a conviction and were forced to wait in prison for 5 years while waiting to be heard, is that your fault for seeking an appeal or the courts for unnecessary delays?0 -
Advertisement
-
Nonsense. You've totally ignored the points I made.
The Kurds in Iraq have more in common with the Kurds in Syria than they do with other Iraqis
Same goes for the sunnis and shi'tes in both countries.
If you are going to refute my claim then at least show some proof. As I said the French and British drew a fake border line about 100 years ago. Have you looked at the Iraqi/Syria border?
I guess its like saying people from Louth and Armagh speak distinctly different dialects of English and have nothing in common
What a load of nonsense.
They might have some similarities (like an Irishman raised in Germany and an Irishman raised in Ireland might have) but you're adopting an extremely orientalist approach to the Middle East.
The Arabs are an extremely divided people who are often more comfortable with nationalism than pan-Arabism: Iraq and Egypt especially. The countries might have only existed recently but regionalism and differing concepts of identities have existed for decades, especially in a system as decentralised as the Ottoman Empire.
Ditto for the Kurds really. It's fascinating when people assume Iranian Kurds are like Iraqi Kurds even though they spent as much time fighting with each other as with their respective governments.0 -
And still able to work.
Once you meet the criteria set out by migrationsverket you then get an AT-UND. Very few are issued and Sweden has the highest non EU unemployment rate of all the 28 member states at 50%. The Swedish migration model is the worst in the EU. In a continent with a huge immigration mess on its hands, that is saying something. The Swedish model is not something we should be even thinking of replicating.
The reason why so many people are stuck in direct provision is because their claims for asylum are 'cock and bull'. We should looking at mechanisms to deport them quicker, not giving them access to our labour market.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/non-eu-citizens-twice-likely-be-unemployed-303834
http://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/Protection-and-asylum-in-Sweden/Adults-seeking-asylum/Work.htmlThis has already been addressed. In the Okunade case, the Supreme Court held a Nigerian woman and her son were entitled to remain in Ireland because they could not be blamed for the long delays in their case: the judge explicitly highlighted that Ireland's complicated and cumbersome asylum laws were to blame. Not people seeking appeals.
You do not seem to like posting links so I will post one for the case.
Reasoning & Decision
http://emn.ie/cat_search_detail.jsp?clog=6&itemID=436&item_name=The Court held that the fact that national law provides for a right of appeal before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal re asylum is not a reason for provision for a full appeal re subsidiary protection.
The Court further held that before the decision maker considers the issue of subsidiary protection the applicant must be at that time a failed asylum seeker liable for deportation. The Court opined that an applicant for subsidiary protection in the State is under advantages compared with applicants elsewhere in the Union in that, for example, having already been given a decision on asylum, he can consider whether to make an application for subsidiary protection and fine tune the submissions he might make. The Court held that the applicants in the instant case had not made out how they had been prejudiced or deprived of any rights by way of any supposed lack of equivalence.
In respect of the effective remedy argument, the Court opined that in the Donegan case the Supreme Court had said that the mechanism applied therein was entirely inadequate when fundamental rights were involved, whereas the situation in the instant case was entirely different from that in Donegan in that here there had been analysis of the essential factual issues, while in Donegan, there was at no stage any such analysis of the essential factual issues in dispute.0 -
There were circa 200k asylum applications in Germany last year. Two thirds of them were rejected. 10k were deported.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/auslaender-wer-einmal-in-deutschland-ist-wird-selten-abgeschoben-13601134.html
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/auslaender-wer-einmal-in-deutschland-ist-wird-selten-abgeschoben-13601134.html
Two thirds is not equivalent to ninety per cent....0 -
Once you meet the criteria set out by migrationsverket you then get an AT-UND. Very few are issued and Sweden has the highest non EU unemployment rate of all the 28 member states at 50%. The Swedish migration model is the worst in the EU. In a continent with a huge immigration mess on its hands, that is saying something. The Swedish model is not something we should be even thinking of replicating.
The reason why so many people are stuck in direct provision is because their claims for asylum are 'cock and bull'. We should looking at mechanisms to deport them quicker, not giving them access to our labour market.
Really? All of them?
"A DOCTOR WHO applied for asylum in Ireland had his request rejected because a member of the decision-making body ‘didn’t like him’."
http://www.thejournal.ie/refugee-appeal-courts-1321448-Feb2014/0 -
Really? All of them?
"A DOCTOR WHO applied for asylum in Ireland had his request rejected because a member of the decision-making body ‘didn’t like him’."
http://www.thejournal.ie/refugee-appeal-courts-1321448-Feb2014/
The fact DOCTOR WHO is in capitals had me confused for a second, I mean of course someone with that name would be refused...0 -
Frank Grimes wrote: »The history of Syria and Iraq did not begin 100 years ago.
Yes that's right, the Mesopotamians drew that straight line between the two countries.
Bravo. Well played sir0 -
In your rush for a sarcastic rebuttal you seemed to have missed the point; the poster is you are implying that because the two countries, as they exist now, were demarcated 100 years ago it means the inhabitants will have a lot of similarities. I, and others, are pointing out that this idea is problematic.Yes that's right, the Mesopotamians drew that straight line between the two countries.
Bravo. Well played sir0 -
-
I'm not sure what your point is here: I never said we should adopt Sweden's asylum policies. I highlighted that we're one of only two EU countries which do not permit asylum seekers to work.Once you meet the criteria set out by migrationsverket you then get an AT-UND. Very few are issued and Sweden has the highest non EU unemployment rate of all the 28 member states at 50%. The Swedish migration model is the worst in the EU. In a continent with a huge immigration mess on its hands, that is saying something. The Swedish model is not something we should be even thinking of replicating.
As for you claims here those are hardly very onerous conditions. Have you any sources that prove "hardly any" work permits are granted in Sweden?
Eh, no. See below.The reason why so many people are stuck in direct provision is because their claims for asylum are 'cock and bull'. We should looking at mechanisms to deport them quicker, not giving them access to our labour market.
Please produce evidence for your claims that people are stuck in asylum due to so many having "cock and bull" applications.
You gotta be kidding me...
You do not seem to like posting links so I will post one for the case.
Reasoning & Decision
http://emn.ie/cat_search_detail.jsp?clog=6&itemID=436&item_name=
I referred to the Supreme Court decision. You've just pulled out the High Court ruling. Surely you know that the Supreme Court hears cases on appeals from the High Court? Why would you bother producing a superseded decision?
Here's the Supreme Court ruling hereIt had, the Court considered, to be taken into account that part of the problem giving rise to the risk of disruption of family life stems from the highly complicated structure of the statutory regime in respect of applications for asylum, subsidiary protection and permission to remain in the State on other grounds, with the consequent prolongation of the process
If you'd been reading through this thread, you'd see I've been fairly consistent in producing evidence. In this case, I was operating under the assumption that people could easily find terms like "Okunade case" easily by themselves. So no, I dunno why you're accusing me of being adverse to posting links.0 -
90% of asylum seekers being refugees would be a very high number, that's why I'm questioning it.Dunno, but seeing as around 93% (between Syrians, Eritreans and Iraqis) will be successful, and the government will almost certainly conduct pre-checks on them beforehand, 90% would be a conservative estimate if they don't account for some cases of mistaken nationality. These would be easy enough to check anyway. It's not like a Kosovar could easily pose as an Arab. Although such people are unlikely to be languishing in Greece right now anyway.
Looking at the most recent quarterly Eurostat figures, Syria and Eritrea have a 73% and a 69% first time refugee status success rate respectively.
So they're either conflating refugee status and subsidiary protection to get that number or they are using a selection system to give that high a number.
The former inspiring my lack of confidence in them.
I'm questioning why you made that comment in that particular strain of conversation.While some refugees might be lying about their nationality, it's unclear why they'd bother doing so to the UNHCR which has no authority to grant asylum. As such, the UNHCR figure of 54% being Syrian is an interesting one.
I never claimed in that strain of conversation that the refugees were lying.
It looks like you're either replying to something I didn't say or bringing points from different conversation strains into other conversations.
A similar situation happened in this post.Ah wait, I get you now.
However, that still leaves hundreds of Syrians (hypothetically) who are perfectly entitled to claim asylum here but forced to wait due to our ridiculous asylum system.
Of course, they could apply for refugee status, get rejected and then immediately apply for subsidiary protection. However, this is a problem with our system. Not with the asylum seekers themselves.
They shouldn't be punished for our bureaucracy and inefficiencies.0 -
Advertisement
-
Frank Grimes wrote: »In your rush for a sarcastic rebuttal you seemed to have missed the point; the poster is you are implying that because the two countries, as they exist now, were demarcated 100 years ago it means the inhabitants will have a lot of similarities. I, and others, are pointing out that this idea is problematic.
That's nice...I provided a reasons and facts as to why it would not be difficult for an Iraqi to pretend he or she was a Syrian to a European.
You have provided your opinion.
Again, well played sir0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,925 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 35854
I remember arguing with you guys that it's easy to spot a family of Roma gypsies and you guys called me a bigot.
Please do not discuss threads from other forums here.We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.
H. H. Asquith
0 -
Your reasons and facts are just your opinion, one which seems ill informed/understood. Just because the border was drawn by colonialists 100 years ago does not mean the inhabitants were 'all the same' prior to that. As Lockstep pointed out earlier, your line of thinking is very Orientalist in that you don't seem to view Arabs/inhabitants of the Middle East generally as anything but a collective mass of similar people.That's nice...I provided a reasons and facts as to why it would not be difficult for an Iraqi to pretend he or she was a Syrian to a European.
You have provided your opinion.
Again, well played sir0 -
Frank Grimes wrote: »Your reasons and facts are just your opinion, one which seems ill informed/understood. Just because the border was drawn by colonialists 100 years ago does not mean the inhabitants were 'all the same' prior to that. As Lockstep pointed out earlier, your line of thinking is very Orientalist in that you don't seem to view Arabs/inhabitants of the Middle East generally as anything but a collective mass of similar people.
Ah now I get it....you didn't read my post...Go back and look at what I wrote before you are so quick to judge.
Stating facts on the ethnic make up of two countries are not opinions....They are facts....So I can stand by that.
You on the other hand refute them with your opinion.
Again, well played sir..0 -
That's nice...I provided a reasons and facts as to why it would not be difficult for an Iraqi to pretend he or she was a Syrian to a European.
You have provided your opinion.
Again, well played sir
I could say I was from Grimsby in England but a few questions would find me out pretty sharpish.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
It's not really my opinion that Syria and Iraq existed (albeit in different forms) before the current borders were drawn. I have read your post and the subsequent replies and I have pointed out, as have others, the problem with what you are saying. I never mentioned anything about what you said about the ethnic make up of the countries either so I don't know why you bring that up. Constantly replying with "well played" doesn't give your posts more credibility either.Ah now I get it....you didn't read my post...Go back and look at what I wrote before you are so quick to judge.
Stating facts on the ethnic make up of two countries are not opinions....They are facts....So I can stand by that.
You on the other hand refute them with your opinion.
Again, well played sir..0 -
Are we looking at the same Eurostat? The one I'm seeing clearly shows that in addition to the 73% of Syrians and 69% of Eritreans granted first instance refugee status, 22% of Syrians and 13% of Eritreans are granted first instance subsidiary protection (and 2% of Eritreans are granted humanitarian leave). So that's 95% of Syrians and 84% of Eritreans. As I highlighted herejackofalltrades wrote: »90% of asylum seekers being refugees would be a very high number, that's why I'm questioning it.
Looking at the most recent quarterly Eurostat figures, Syria and Eritrea have a 73% and a 69% first time refugee status success rate respectively.
So they're either conflating refugee status and subsidiary protection to get that number or they are using a selection system to give that high a number.
The former inspiring my lack of confidence in them.
The Eurostat figures for Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans combined, means they will have a collective success rate of 93% in the first instance.
They won't be many appealing decisions as the overwhelming majority will be granted asylum in the first instance. This is in addition to the fact the government will almost certainly be engaging in some preliminary work before bringing them to Ireland.
So yeah, the source you're using clearly shows that 73% is not including those granted subsidiary protection. It's the blue part of the pie charts? Are you genuinely not seeing them?
Ok, so what exactly is the issue here? You brought up claims that up to 30% of asylum seekers are claiming to be Syrians (based on unverifiable estimates). Seeing as this is apparently based on Frontex estimates, but Frontex estimates are that 42% of arrivals are Syrian. Just 10% off (at the time) of estimates by the UNHCR for Syrian refugee numbers.jackofalltrades wrote: »I'm questioning why you made that comment in that particular strain of conversation.
I never claimed in that strain of conversation that the refugees were lying.
It looks like you're either replying to something I didn't say or bringing points from different conversation strains into other conversations.
What's your issue with this post? You highlighted that only 73% of Syrians would be granted asylum. This ignores that 22% will be granted subsidiary protection. Only 5% would be ineligible. If we ran a decent asylum system, we could process those granted refugee status and those granted subsidiary protection at the same timejackofalltrades wrote: »A similar situation happened in this post.0 -
Are we looking at the same Eurostat? The one I'm seeing clearly shows that in addition to the 73% of Syrians and 69% of Eritreans granted first instance refugee status, 22% of Syrians and 13% of Eritreans are granted first instance subsidiary protection (and 2% of Eritreans are granted humanitarian leave). So that's 95% of Syrians and 84% of Eritreans. As I highlighted here
A common mistake, you can't add two sets of percentage figures for the same 100% total together like this! you would have to show clearly that none of the first lot were in the second lot and vice-versa.0 -
Are we looking at the same Eurostat? The one I'm seeing clearly shows that in addition to the 73% of Syrians and 69% of Eritreans granted first instance refugee status, 22% of Syrians and 13% of Eritreans are granted first instance subsidiary protection (and 2% of Eritreans are granted humanitarian leave). So that's 95% of Syrians and 84% of Eritreans. As I highlighted here
The Eurostat figures for Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans combined, means they will have a collective success rate of 93% in the first instance.
They won't be many appealing decisions as the overwhelming majority will be granted asylum in the first instance. This is in addition to the fact the government will almost certainly be engaging in some preliminary work before bringing them to Ireland.
So yeah, the source you're using clearly shows that 73% is not including those granted subsidiary protection. It's the blue part of the pie charts? Are you genuinely not seeing them?
There's no addition.
I'm purely talking about refugee status, if you're bringing in subsidiary protection you've made a wrong turn.
Why are the Irish Government expecting a figure as high as 90% when the EU-28 seems to be averaging 73%?They won't be many appealing decisions as the overwhelming majority will be granted asylum in the first instance. This is in addition to the fact the government will almost certainly be engaging in some preliminary work before bringing them to Ireland.
Just to deal with the point separately and copying some info from post #577.
Hypothetically if all the 3500 asylum seekers are Syrian, and using Q2 2015 EU-28 figures.
73% will be granted refugee status.
27% will be denied refugee status.
5% will be denied both refugee status and Subsidiary Protection.
So that's 175 who will most likely appeal their refugee status decision.
And a further 770 who are highly likely to decide to appeal their initial decision to the RAT and possibly beyond.
As it makes sense to exhaust the Refugee track before continuing down the subsidiary protection path.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok, so what exactly is the issue here?
Here's another example.What's your issue with this post?
In a conversation that is specifically centred on the details of where the government got a 90% figure, you're brining details that aren't relevant.They won't be many appealing decisions as the overwhelming majority will be granted asylum in the first instance.
This is in addition to the fact the government will almost certainly be engaging in some preliminary work before bringing them to Ireland.
To make a point that I've already addressed in a previous post.
I'm not having a go at you, it's just I don't understand why you're bringing in these details.
I'll leave it at that as I don't want to be going further off-topic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement