Asylum Seekers Getting Apartments in Ballinamore - mod warning in OP (18/10)

lightspeed

Boggles wrote: »

Not at all.

Local Housing authorities routinely allow homeless people switch and there may also be swaps because of various reasons.

Now you may have a bit of trouble if the local authority is absolutely overwhelmed, then they might enforce the rules regarding links in the area.

But homelessness would be eradicated within 12 months if the numbers could be dispersed throughout the island.

Obviously that will never happen.

How many homeless are actually people pushed out of rental market and working or looking to work?

Lets call it how it is, the large majority of homeless are drunks and junkies that never worked a day In their life.

Im open to correction but I heard it quoted on newstalk few months ago that 30% of homeless here are non irish with many coming from eastern Europe as better to be homeless here. Several of the cases where a homeless person died on streets and it made headlines were people from eastern Europe. If they get off a plane and go straight to streets of Dublin, should they win a home as well for their valiant efforts?

It is also the case that on many occasions accommodation has been refused from people living in hotels in Dublin off the back of the taxpayer.

However, people feel about multiculturism and its failings im sick of this "help our own bullcrap". I find it disgusting the idea that everybody in Ireland deserves a home. Why if people are not willing to work or contribute and just put their hand out should they be entitled to a home?

Gatling

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course thats the suggestion. Refugee/Asylum seeker = Rapist thieving illiterate scum in the vies of many here.

Despite your attempt at sensational .


The facts across Europe speak for themselves

PostWoke

bubblypop wrote: »

It was closed because the number of asylum seekers went down.
No-one wanted to buy the hotel because it wouldn't do any business.
So, basically it would have been a lot better if the asylum seekers had kept coming & kept it lived in.
Now it's terrible

Or y'know, if the gob****e developer hadn't produced the building where there was nobody to take them. Imagine that! And idiotic developer? Sure that's fake news left over from the last recession right?

padd b1975 wrote: »

Most Achill people are cool enough with the prospect, there was a meeting last night that had none of the theatrics that have become the norm.

What the fck else is going on on Achill Island? I bet they're just glad to have more people than sheep for a change. You think there's a housing/homelessness crisis occurring on Achill yeah?

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah they are investing €30 million to house asylum seekers. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't it have to be, considering you allege nobody else wants to live there?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course thats the suggestion. Refugee/Asylum seeker = Rapist thieving illiterate scum in the vies of many here.

Imagine being this dismissive of victims of crimes like rape.

Just imagine.

enricoh

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course thats the suggestion. Refugee/Asylum seeker = Rapist thieving illiterate scum in the vies of many here.

I've no idea why people object to having them dumped in their towns to hang around the place . Only for a passing squad car put him off this young one walking home may well have sampled some cultural enrichment.

https://www.longfordleader.ie/news/home/488339/asylum-seeker-gets-80-hours-community-service-following-longford-town-incident.html

Calhoun

enricoh wrote: »

I've no idea why people object to having them dumped in their towns to hang around the place . Only for a passing squad car put him off this young one walking home may well have sampled some cultural enrichment.

https://www.longfordleader.ie/news/home/488339/asylum-seeker-gets-80-hours-community-service-following-longford-town-incident.html

Community service, an arrest of violent crime during asylum process should be an automatic expulsion.

1641

Ironic that Irish anti-immigrant prejudice mimics fairly directly the prejudice that has previously been directed against Irish immigrants to Britain and the US - crime, poor integration, clannish, sexual violence, cunning, devious, low intelligence, etc. The only one I haven't heard repeated is drunkenness.

Calhoun

1641 wrote: »

Ironic that Irish anti-immigrant prejudice mimics fairly directly the prejudice that has previously been directed against Irish immigrants to Britain and the US - crime, poor integration, clannish, sexual violence, cunning, devious, low intelligence, etc. The only one I haven't heard repeated is drunkenness.

There are legitimate concerns in how we are approaching the immigration process at the moment. There is also prejudice but we need to be able to tell one from the other or we will essentially build the anti-immigrant sentiment.

There seem to also be the impression that Ireland as a country should open its borders because we have people that emigrated but that wont answer anything either.

If we get a system in place that vet's asylum seekers entering the country, and lets those in actual need in and not economic migrants then there will be a much better counter to the growing anti-immigrant sentiment. I would also look into improving the immigration service so asylum seeker cases are handled at a much faster speed and finally how to deal with asylum seekers and immigrants that break the law.

The way we are going right now in general is the service from top to bottom is pretty crappy and only services the landlords who own the hotels. The secretive nature of the centers they build just make it look like they don't give a crap about what people think.

I would also say the government know the movement against migrants is growing, they have voted against plans to stepup the intake of more refugees through search and rescue.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-meps-defend-voting-against-plan-for-eu-to-step-up-searchandrescue-for-refugees-in-mediterranean-38628696.html

PostWoke

Calhoun wrote: »

Community service, an arrest of violent crime during asylum process should be an automatic expulsion.

Can't believe that should even need to be said but here we are...

1641

Calhoun wrote: »

There are legitimate concerns in how we are approaching the immigration process at the moment. There is also prejudice but we need to be able to tell one from the other or we will essentially build the anti-immigrant sentiment.

1. There seem to also be the impression that Ireland as a country should open its borders because we have people that emigrated but that wont answer anything either.

If we get a system in place that vet's asylum seekers entering the country, and lets those in actual need in and not economic migrants then there will be a much better counter to the growing anti-immigrant sentiment. I would also look into improving the immigration service so asylum seeker cases are handled at a much faster speed and finally how to deal with asylum seekers and immigrants that break the law.

2. The way we are going right now in general is the service from top to bottom is pretty crappy and only services the landlords who own the hotels. The secretive nature of the centers they build just make it look like they don't give a crap about what people think.

I would also say the government know the movement against migrants is growing, they have voted against plans to stepup the intake of more refugees through search and rescue.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fine-gael-meps-defend-voting-against-plan-for-eu-to-step-up-searchandrescue-for-refugees-in-mediterranean-38628696.html

1. Where is this impression that "Ireland as a country should open its borders"? It is certainly not mainstream - maybe expressed by some small minority fringe. I have often heard this line trotted out about opening our borders to everyone, but it is unsupported by evidence. What is described as our "inhumane asylum system" is obvious evidence to the counter.



2. Our present service is easy to criticise but noone that I know has come up with an alternative that has widespread appeal either. Put in one that is "more humane" and it will be criticised even more for prioritising foreigners, costing too much, too soft soap, etc. Something else will be criticised from the other end of the spectrum. Too be honest, I think a lot of people all using this line about "our crappy direct provision system" to let themselves off the hook either publically or privately (to themselves - its easier to justify to yourself). Not saying some aren't genuine, but the majority, no.


Of course there are legitimate concerns - concerns that should be discussed. But the extremist prejudice that is being expressed by some is not about "legitimate concerns". It is just the venting of our own "Know Nothings" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing ).

smokingman

Gatling wrote: »

Despite your attempt at sensational .


The facts across Europe speak for themselves

It's almost funny how much busier this thread gets when the yanks come online...

4068ac1elhodqr

1641 wrote: »

Of course there are legitimate concerns - concerns that should be discussed. But ....

I.e. There may be legitimate concerns, but you don't consider any concerns as being legitimate. Guess that's fair enough, you are entitled to hold/reject any view, free speech etc.

Topgear on Dave

Serious Boss? wrote: »

Yeah who could possibly have a problem with 'asylum seekers' afters hundreds of German women were attacked by them on NYE?

Sure go ahead and let them all in.

Oooooooohhh HELOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO brand new poster, how are you?

malinheader

Calhoun wrote: »

Community service, an arrest of violent crime during asylum process should be an automatic expulsion.

Scumbag should of got a good kicking and sent packing on next plane home. Probably what would happen if we tried the same in their country or worse.. This country going to pay the price in later years for being the soft touch.

Calhoun

1641 wrote: »

1. Where is this impression that "Ireland as a country should open its borders"? It is certainly not mainstream - maybe expressed by some small minority fringe. I have often heard this line trotted out about opening our borders to everyone, but it is unsupported by evidence. What is described as our "inhumane asylum system" is obvious evidence to the counter.



2. Our present service is easy to criticise but noone that I know has come up with an alternative that has widespread appeal either. Put in one that is "more humane" and it will be criticised even more for prioritising foreigners, costing too much, too soft soap, etc. Something else will be criticised from the other end of the spectrum. Too be honest, I think a lot of people all using this line about "our crappy direct provision system" to let themselves off the hook either publically or privately (to themselves - its easier to justify to yourself). Not saying some aren't genuine, but the majority, no.


Of course there are legitimate concerns - concerns that should be discussed. But the extremist prejudice that is being expressed by some is not about "legitimate concerns". It is just the venting of our own "No Nothings" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing ).

Well as much as there is prejudice against immigrants coming in the otherside of the coin is that Ireland should be welcoming of all because of its own immigrant past. This argument has been seen on board and many order online sites.

Our present system looks to enrich hoteliers and landlords, it is propped up by having a piss poor immigration process that goes on for years rather than providing answers in a short amount of time. If we were to fix it we should look at speeding the overall system up so we don't need to keep people in hotel accommodation for as long as we do. If we do have to house them then consultation with local communities and perhaps purpose built accommodation might be the way to go.

There is of course extreme prejudice this thread alone, we know that allot of our own homegrown homeless do not want to move far from where their current family ect live. So why we are up in arms over apartments down the country when we probably wouldnt live in them is beyond me. However i feel the current way of handling it is amplifying the problem, we are essentially copying the trends in other European countries.

zimmermania

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Wtf will they do in Ballinamore? It will only lead to a feeling of abandonment and crime. It's not good for anybody, locals or the asylum seekers.

This policy of putting asylum seekers in random country towns is absolutely ridiculous.

I'd imagine the flats were built there by some local developer. Happened a lot during the boom, the local lad done good came back to show off his new found wealth by building mini estates in nonsense locations.

Jeez i hope it does not lead to crime as you suggest.
Why would a peaceful people in Ballinamore suddenly turn to crime?

For god sake stop this talk about crime or you will frighten the people in direct provision and they will be afraid to live in Ballinamore.

Graces7

Wondering what exactly is the status of the people who eg were to come to Achill? Is this families? Or single men? Just seems to be a blind reaction? What the Achill councillor said was unusual and sensible. Achill is a very isolated and remote place. Depopulated like many islands.

Also is not the fact of immigrants of this kind part of Ireland's obligation as an EU /world community member? So no comparison re native homeless applies? (Whether it should or not is a different matter)

Who owns eg the hotel in Achill? and in other places? What staffing would such a centre need and be given? In common with other small towns where they are trying to set up DP centres. services like medical care are already minimal. If you check Achill for eg. the main health care centre has 2 women drs. Muslim men will not see a female dr and Muslim women will not see a male dr.

These things need careful consideration etc; not just to have large numbers dumped as was to happen. Done properly it could benefit smaller places. Just sticking a pin in a map as seems to be happening these days?

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Community service, an arrest of violent crime during asylum process should be an automatic expulsion.

Not conviction then?
Just arrest & expulsion without the right to a fair trial?
Well, that seems fair.

1641

Marianna Little Stinker wrote: »

I.e. There may be legitimate concerns, but you don't consider any concerns as being legitimate. Guess that's fair enough, you are entitled to hold/reject any view, free speech etc.

No rejection of free speech. I am pointing out that the prejudices regularly expressed re violence, robbery, clannishness, sexual threat, etc. etc., exactly echo anti- Irish prejudice of the past.



Concerns re process, numbers, how services can be provided in localities, etc, etc, are perfectly legitimate and should be discussed and taken on board. More often than not it seems these are immediately trotted out and hidden behind as a reason to reject acceptance outright - no further engagement necessary. It is not discussssion - it is rejection.


"No dogs, No blacks, No Asylum Seekers" would be more honest.

1641

Our present system looks to enrich hoteliers and landlords, it is propped up by having a piss poor immigration process that goes on for years rather than providing answers in a short amount of time. If we were to fix it we should look at speeding the overall system up so we don't need to keep people in hotel accommodation for as long as we do. If we do have to house them then consultation with local communities and perhaps purpose built accommodation might be the way to go.

Propose any system you like and it will carry just as many objections or more. Purpose built accomodation? Uproar! Supports through directly provided public services? Costs and inefficiency! Quick processing? People not checked properly!

I am not saying that there are not issues here or that improvements can not be made. But fundamentally it is not the issue. It is the convenient excuse.

Gatling

bubblypop wrote: »

Not conviction then?
Just arrest & expulsion without the right to a fair trial?
Well, that seems fair.

Perfectly fair if you cannot abide by a country's laws your demanding protection and lifelong benefits and housing by right you should be immediately removed on conviction.

Or would you rather dangerous foreign imported criminals should be rewarded ,

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Perfectly fair if you cannot abide by a country's laws your demanding protection and lifelong benefits and housing by right you should be immediately removed on conviction.

Or would you rather dangerous foreign imported criminals should be rewarded ,

You do know someone is not a criminal until they are convicted right?
I was responding to a poster who said they should be thrown out, on arrest.

Gatling

bubblypop wrote: »

You do know someone is not a criminal until they are convicted right?

Lol

Boggles

bubblypop wrote: »

You do know someone is not a criminal until they are convicted right?

Skin pigmentation is enough to sway the mind of a certain basket of "jurors".

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

Skin pigmentation is enough to sway the mind of a certain basket of "jurors".

That's utter nonsense

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

That's utter nonsense

Doesn't necessarily have to be skin pigmentation either.

For instance you have decided in your mind that the asylum seekers that may be housed in Achill are all ready dangerous violent criminals.

So in essence a couple of words can steadfastly form ones opinion.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Lol

OK, so you're not aware of how justice works.
May explain something

1641

Graces7 wrote: »

He spoke very directly about the awareness that DP " sucks" as he put it; that they on Achill would welcome these people if they were coming as families to the empty houses there and thus would be integrated into the community.

The village there where the hotel is has a population of under 100; and they were going to bus in 40 refugees with no warning.

Sure, the usual "DP sucks" .

Who owns the houses? Are they being offered by the owners for asylum seekers ? At what cost, if at all? How about food, heat, utilities? Should asylum seekers get an allowance to pay for all this (imagine outcry)? Are people going to get houses and "integrate into the community" before being processed? What about those who have integrated and don't get permission to remain?

Nah - Let's just stick to DP sucks.

Graces7

1641 wrote: »

Sure, the usual "DP sucks" .

Who owns the houses? Are they being offered by the owners for asylum seekers ? At what cost, if at all? How about food, heat, utilities? Should asylum seekers get an allowance to pay for all this (imagine outcry)? Are people going to get houses and "integrate into the community" before being processed? What about those who have integrated and don't get permission to remain?

Nah - Let's just stick to DP sucks.

You need to read what was said. See the link.

1641

Graces7 wrote: »

You need to read what was said. See the link.

I did. Essentially we say "NO" because we are just so good and kind and understanding. Heartwarming, it was.

Speaking at the end of the meeting, Cllr McNamara summed up what he felt was the mood of the meeting. Each of comments were met with sustained applause.
“The Achill Head is not fit for purpose as a Direct Provision centre, that is what is coming out of the meeting?” he asked.
Cllr McNamara said few can appreciate the plight of migration more than the people of Achill.
“We are a very small community with a population of about 2,500, and nobody knows better than us about emigration and how our fathers and forefathers had to go to England in order to send home the wage packets to keep us all going here. We’re a very welcoming community,” he said.

weldoninhio

Boggles wrote: »

Skin pigmentation is enough to sway the mind of a certain basket of "jurors".

You realise that the recent influx of fake asylum seekers are white, right?? From Georgia and Albania.