Asylum seekers cost P-PARS times 2+ EVERY YEAR

[TheOmbudsman]

Was it last year or the one before that the Govt said the annual cost of dealing with asylum seekers was of the order of €350 million a year?

There's never any outrage from politicians about this expenditure though.

And this figure doesn't take into account the costs of trials like the one we've just had in Waterford or the numerous other criminal trials not to mention crimes committed by Asylum-seekers and ex-asylum seekers.

[TheBear]

What does that title even mean?

[TheOmbudsman]

What does that title even mean?

I'm sure you'll get it eventually, (tip: sometimes it helps to leave a problem and come back to it later).

[Catalpa]

Your right mate it's a bloody scandal.

I see Spain is now forcibly deporting immigrants who have entered without prior permission after recently going over the wire at her two north African enclaves.

If one EU State can do this why not another?

See link:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1009/melilla.html

[TheBear]

What does that title even mean?

I'm sure you'll get it eventually, (tip: sometimes it helps to leave a problem and come back to it later).

Yeah, I just didn't know what that payroll thingy was. But then again, I am just a girl, so... *titter*

[TheOmbudsman]

But then again, I am just a girl, so... *titter*

What's that got to do with it?
Plenty of girls read the papers, I've seen 'em!

[TheBear]

But then again, I am just a girl, so... *titter*

What's that got to do with it?
Plenty of girls read the papers, I've seen 'em!

Oh, it's just my stock excuse for not knowing stuff. But seeing as you're a new poster, I wouldn't expect you to know that kind of thing...

[BarryW]

There's never any outrage from politicians about this expenditure though

You pathetic little sadcase. Its drivel like this that deflects attention from the real cause of the waste, and allow FF to get away with it.

The budget for dealing with asylum seekers is:
1) Perfectly justifiable spending on those who are entitled to asylum
2) A necessary expenditure on dealing with those who have no rights to asylum, and deporting them if necessary
(and everything in between)
That 350 million is not being "wasted" (in the same sense as the computers at any rate - i'm not lauding McDowell's asylum initiatives, but...)

The PPRS money was PISSED DOWN THE DRAIN.

Are you telling me you don't see the difference?

[hiding behind a poster]

Was it last year or the one before that the Govt said the annual cost of dealing with asylum seekers was of the order of €350 million a year?

There's never any outrage from politicians about this expenditure though.

So what would you suggest we do instead???


Let's see now -

Option number 1 ) Turn all the greasy foreign b*stards away at the ports, even as they make their initial asylum application

Advantages - cheap, simple, and appeals to the racist vote.

Disadvantages - completely illegal, what with us being signatories to several international treaties on asylum.


Option number 2) Allow them to wait in the country while their application is processed, but employ far fewer people in the relevant departments, thus meaning they're here a lot longer before they get a decision.

Advantages - slight reduction in costs in the Dept of Justice.

Disadvantages - increase in cost of keeping them here while they wait for their verdict.


Option number 3) Reduce their weekly entitlement.

Advantages - saves money.

Disadvantages - you can't go down very far from 19 Euro a week.



Option number 4) Have a system whereby asylum requests are considered, while seekers wait in fairly basic, rudimentary, but humane accomodation, are provided with basic meals, but aren't allowed to join the workforce.


wait a second, isn't that what we're already doing???

[TheOmbudsman]

Option number 1 ) Turn all the greasy foreign b*stards away at the ports, even as they make their initial asylum application

Advantages - cheap, simple, and appeals to the racist vote.

Disadvantages - completely illegal, what with us being signatories to several international treaties on asylum.

I wouldn't turn everyone away, only those who failed the on-the-spot interview, and an on-the-spot appeal, if they exercised their right to an ots appeal.
The interview and appeal would be conducted by different officials (who , incidentally , would be regularly given refresher courses and tests to make sure they weren't racist/racialists.
Applications from individuals from countries with no direct transport links to this country would be very likely to fail on-the-spot and the applicant deported.
The rest I'd house in a secure centre while their applications were decided in a no-nonsense and above all else speedy manner. Cos the delays are depressing for the applicants apparently.

Option number 2) Allow them to wait in the country while their application is processed, but employ far fewer people in the relevant departments, thus meaning they're here a lot longer before they get a decision.

Advantages - slight reduction in costs in the Dept of Justice.

Disadvantages - increase in cost of keeping them here while they wait for their verdict.

See answer above, (it's in bold type)

Option number 3) Reduce their weekly entitlement.

Advantages - saves money.

Disadvantages - you can't go down very far from 19 Euro a week.

see answer above,, (it's in bold type)
[size=7](anyway you'll find that their pocket money is only a fraction of what they receive and an even tinier fraction of what they cost, honest!)[/size]

Option number 4) Have a system whereby asylum requests are considered, while seekers wait in fairly basic, rudimentary, but humane accomodation, are provided with basic meals, but aren't allowed to join the workforce.


wait a second, isn't that what we're already doing???

see answer above, (it's in bold type)