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

Time for a zero refugee policy? - *Read OP for mod warnings and threadbans - updated 11/5/24*

Options
1594595597599600850

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,677 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Point is what I stated originally, that facilitating stable agreements on immigration with North African/Middle Eastern countries is going to be far from reliable and easy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,537 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    I'm not 'out of tune' with anything, nor am I defending anything.

    I am pointing out the realities that you just want to ignore.

    You might want the country and its agents to break the laws, they won't be doing that.

    You might want Ireland to be the first country to tear up the Geneva convention, they won't be doing that either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    Ah but a year ago Helen, her colleagues and supporters/cronys were busy with their "international obligations" or looking for the "far right" and racists hiding under beds. They can't be looking at the immigration crisis while denying it and labeling anyone who says otherwise just to silence people.

    This is typical of government, they are always slow to react and only when it becomes a crisis or if their seats are under threat will they make decisions. If they tackled these things head on at the start and nipped it in the bud it would be better for all. It is the same with the Mica issue, they knew about that more than a decade ago but did nothing and now peoples houses are crumbling and still they dither, where as if that was dealt with when first reported it would have saved a lot of heart ache and money.

    Also it is not this government but most governments in this country all act this way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,512 ✭✭✭brickster69


    It is not much use if the leaders are not part of that 80% though is it ? It is not something that just appeared, it has been going on for years and getting worse but nothing changes. What is the actual aim of it all, because i can't possibly see any of this being a positive outcome.

    “The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.”

    - Camille Paglia



  • Registered Users Posts: 254 ✭✭pauly58


    Posters have said I can't see what we can do, it's easy, start deporting them. A Government that can dump 60 odd billion of unsecured bondholders debt on us could sort that with no problem. Never mind emergency legislation to send them back to the UK, that's a non starter, pick a country, preferably where you originated but in any case you're not staying here.

    Posters like Kaiser & myself were saying last year, this wasn't going to end well, absolutely no plan, the start of the mess was taking all of them from Ukraine, men as well. We should have decided exactly who we were going to take, not the other way round of where was safe.

    McEntee reminds me of Mary Coughlan, not a clue but she had to take Daddy's seat.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    I'm quite happy to let others on this thread be a judge of your claim that your regular postings are not 'out of tune' with anything, nor defending anything.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Can't see the encampment returning to Mount Street and environs this time. Jim O'Callaghan TD not a happy bunny.

    But surely the Phoenix Park would be perfect, close to city and loads of space to establish a large community.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    It's amazing the amount of support Irexit gets on this thread, as well as admiration for the Tories.

    Does that not indicate you guys are in something of an echo chamber?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭Archduke Franz Ferdinand


    Brian Dobson talking shite on rte now, asking were the people on mount street “given a choice” about where they were going or if they wanted to stay where they are. I don’t know why when government representatives come on air try to answer or defend these type of questions. Maybe rte would like to take them in…?!?!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭Archduke Franz Ferdinand


    why should we turn a beautiful park and green space used and enjoyed by many into a no go **** hole of a refugee camp?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,677 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Nah, Herbert Park or the Grounds of RTE would be much closer



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    so from a tent city to a tent countryside just like before St Patrick’s Day in March - whilst the Gardai will prevent new tents in mount st, there’s a lot more places around Dublin to pitch a tent - and anyway IF more people come in from the UK, where are they going to go?
    It’s pass the parcel stuff at this stage



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,512 ✭✭✭brickster69


    What about the politicians offer a spare bedroom at their home for a few months ?

    “The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.”

    - Camille Paglia



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭kowloonkev


    RTE are in on it and were likely told to ask that question as it makes the government stance seem tough on asylum seekers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,762 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Well, if you think I'm being obtuse, I can tell you now that I have no problem with your proposal to have no appeals — obviously so long as the initial process is fair. But the reason I don't oppose it is because really I don't think it actually makes much difference aside from an administrative saving maybe. That's because whether they are rejected at first stage or an appeal stage, it's how you actually deal with the rejected person which is the troublesome point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,256 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    I'll revisit my reply to you on this topic from a previous post. The same questions are being asked different ways. I do not mean make conditions physically terrible, I mean we need to have a much more robust approach to what is for the most part economic migration disguised as seeking asylum. If people know they have little chance of not being returned home they will stop coming.

    At the very least you have to agree that the status quo cannot continue. You ask me what not being soft actually is? I would consider almost anything an improvement on our current policy/system.

    Extract from previous post (see post #17638 for context):

    As we currently have to process asylum seekers in the country and we are not a charity for everyone looking a better life:

    • Abolish the right to remain. If the courts, IPO/IPAT have decided someone cannot stay, the justice minister should not be able to overrule this.
    • Enforce deportations out of the EU, no self deportations. ( everyone is fingerprinted (i know they are already)- a failure in any EU country should prevent an application in another - no point in allowing failed applicants to bounce around the EU. If home countries refuse, set above.)
    • Remove the right to work - the asylum system should not be seen as an alternative to the visa system.
    • Quicker decisions and remove the ability to tie the court up for years with appeals etc.
    • Limit access to welfare/Healthcare/education/housing etc.
    • Limit access to citizenship.
    • Committing of any crime is a bar to application and automatic deportation.
    • Anyone who comes in via NI is an automatic rejection/deportation.
    • Anyone arriving without documentation is an automatic rejection/deportation.
    • Limit the number of applications per year

    And I would add to this all claim decisions should have to be attended in person. If denied, detained. No slinking off into the gig economy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,762 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    And I agree with you entirely. But there is no reliable and easy solution and this is why I would like to see the national conversation on this pushed to a higher and healthier level. Because from that you might get the rise of future political figures who have better rounded and less ideologically entrenched vision for the future of migration policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    They should have been sent to Montrose, plenty of space out there to set up a camp site and then they could use the RTE canteen and other facilities there are well.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 14,097 Mod ✭✭✭✭pc7


    Many RTE shows have been trolling over the last year, soft interviews with AS on the streets etc



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,436 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Whatever the solution is, it must be centred on capacity.

    Nobody is talking about that.

    People talk about faster processing times, yet faster processing times of succesful applicants leads to GREATER demand on housing and infrastructure, not less.

    Capacity is the question nobody will answer.

    How much accom and services do we have available to IPAs each year and how many will arrive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,256 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    Didn't he get the government memo? Irish people have no say where they go, neither do the immigrants.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,762 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    That's all fine — I mean, I don't necessarily agree with all of that — but there is one overarching issue with all of it: it all relies on an effective, reliable system of deportation.

    If you keep asylum seekers out of work, OK, but if you can't deport them then they become an economic burden that is not allowed to work. If you abolish the right to remain, grand, but if you can't deport them it effectively ends up being the same thing. Et cetera et cetera.

    So everything you say there, in order for any of it to be a deterrent, you need the deportation system to be reliable and effective — otherwise none of those deterrents are really deterrents at all. So that's the challenge.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,768 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    well ideally once processed the bogus would be ejected from the country thus solving the capacity.

    You are right though we should be capping on the genuine AS also.



  • Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭engineerws


    That's not my proposal. It's a potentially less soft approach that you were requesting.

    In terms of where we would go with such an option. It'd probably be self deport but it would mean the state would not have to provide accommodation which would enable them to focus more on the homeless children.

    I don't know the best option. The are a multitude of options going softer and harder. We could skip the current process and go for a soft approach so that everyone arriving claiming asylum is granted asylum. I don't know the best approach but the current homeless figures https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/291514/ad110785-912f-4e64-a83b-f82262017212.pdf#page=null and especially those of children seem very wrong to me.

    Also, and I feel bad for saying this but I'd rather the entire East coast wasn't concreted over too.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,436 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    without knowing how many succesful applicants there are, even processing and deporting 100% of bogus applicants in 60 seconds does not resolve the accomodation needs of the succesful applicants.

    Thats why capacity is key.

    We expect around 25k IPAs this year.

    Assume 50% are succesful. We need to accomodate 12,500 IPAs through 2024.

    Approx 1,000 people a month require accomodation and infrastructuee supports.

    If the govt cannot provide a rolling stock of 1,000 newly available beds each month across 2024, we have breached capacity and people are on the streets.

    The 12,500 unsuccesful applicants could be deported instantly. It would not matter.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,895 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    The vast majority would be rejected though. Likely. Leaving free space for the few genuine ones



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭StrawbsM


    The more than 70 years old Geneva conventions are not fit for purpose and need a complete overhaul. The sentiments which they’re based on may have had merit post World War II but the worldwide population has skyrocketed since.
    Politicians hide behind “international obligations” but you never hear them say that they’re lobbying for changes or bringing up the subject on a UN level.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,256 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    Correct - but not being able to deport failed applicants cannot be an option either. How we deal with countries refusing to take back their people should be straight forward. Offer them the carrot or the stick. In whatever form that might have to take. The EU approach to this is far too soft - removing access to visas etc isn't really going to do much.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement