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

Marcos

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282392#Comment_120282392

Look don't you realise that some people have no other argument, so resort to whataboutery at this stage.

Backstreet Moyes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282477#Comment_120282477

Boggles sorry I did not look at who I responded to.

Like I have previously stated I will not waste my time engaging with you considering your disingenuous posting style.

I apologise for quoting your post.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282392#Comment_120282392

Denmark is mentioned over 10 times in this thread already according to the search function.*

*interesting to note

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282542#Comment_120282542

So basically you have been caught spreading the same old racist tropes and you are now taking the moral high ground. 😂

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282675#Comment_120282675

No, no, no, you don't understand! These people are different we shouldn't need to think of and treat them with humanity.

enricoh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282041#Comment_120282041

So 86% polled say there is a limit to the numbers we can take in, yet the government is still saying no limit. Talk about being out of tune with the electorate.

batman_oh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282392#Comment_120282392

Can't see them going there as Denmark (left wing government) have told the EU to get bent and are actively not taking refugees after seeing Sweden's amazing experience.

rgossip30

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120281166#Comment_120281166

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282478#Comment_120282478

The stats post looks like a contradiction you restict the numbers and you are not following International obligations of protection.

Marcos is that you from p.ie ?

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283027#Comment_120283027

But the first column is the key one. Almost 80% of people agreeing that Ireland has an obligation to take in refugees and asylum seekers.

The anti-refugee guys are trying to sow all sorts of confusion and misinformation by implying that the public are turning against the idea of giving refugees shelter, when it is clear that they merely have concerns about current pressures on accommodation and infrastructure and whether we have the capacity to take in large numbers. 70% of people saying they want to see protests outside refugee centres banned is a striking finding - the protesters and those who organise the protests are clearly seen as troublemakers and being up to no good.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283629#Comment_120283629

But clearly, from the 84% that want to see a cap on numbers introduced, people want to see controlled levels of immigration.

I thought you disregarded polls last week?

Anyway you are reading too much into it.

The answer to the question.

There is a limit to what Ireland can cope with. -sic

Should be.

Is yes, 100% agree, obviously.

The answer to should Ukrainians be treated differently to other asylum seekers. -sic

That should also be 100%. Obviously.

If you ask remedial questions with the only option of yes/no answers the data that produces is going be absolutely useless.

BoxcarWilliam99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282380#Comment_120282380

Possibly. Accurate all the same isn't it?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284634#Comment_120284634

No it's inherently racist.

Same sort of feral scum that would have thrown bananas at black English footballers back in the day.

BoxcarWilliam99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284685#Comment_120284685

So if someone moves from overseas to a country and gains citizenship it's racist to say that while they are now an Irish, UK, Australian etc citizen they have no history here.

Really !?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284729#Comment_120284729

Who are you talking about?

BoxcarWilliam99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284732#Comment_120284732

Anyone.

You said it's racist to say that which is outrageous

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284737#Comment_120284737

Well no.

The case in question were British citizens by birth, predominately of Pakistani heritage, Pakistan a country where Lizzy was actually queen of for a time.

So when you refer to "History" what do you actually mean?

British on paper maybe but not by history

What's an adequate amount of this "history" before you are no longer considered "British on paper".

Is Raheem Sterling only "British on paper maybe but not by history"?

BoxcarWilliam99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284745#Comment_120284745

Well by history would be a few generations back. In 1951 the white population of Britain was 99.83%.

That's only one generation. 70 odd years ago.

Multicultural Britain is a new thing.

.17% in 1951

19% 70 years later.

Unbelievable but thems the facts.

Maybe in another 100 years or so. Depends on your own views

Well Raheem Sterling was born in Jamaica so would you say he has British history?

He can play for Jamaica or England and love either, neither or both. It's up to him

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284783#Comment_120284783

So you can't be British unless you are white?

BoxcarWilliam99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284890#Comment_120284890

No I didn't say that at all . And you know I didn't write that.

You should re read my post.

We are talking about British history and if someone has it.

I see what you are up to. You tried some sort of set up with your Raheem Sterling question too. I'm not playing that game with you.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284899#Comment_120284899

This is what you said

British on paper maybe but not by history

In 1951 the white population of Britain was 99.83%.

Maybe in another 100 years or so. Depends on your own views

So what you are exactly saying is the only 100% British people in Britain are white?

The likes of the Prime Minister is only paper British?

Correct?

BoxcarWilliam99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284923#Comment_120284923

No we were talking about having history in a country.

A white Irish person could move to the UK. They wouldn't have history there. Maybe in 3 or 4 generations time.

Or an Angolan could move to Nigeria. They wouldn't have a historical connection to Nigeria. Maybe their grandchildren or great grandchildren would.

Im not playing your "what about this and what about that" game.

And stop trying to put words in my mouth. What I have written is clear. The stats I used are historical UK census stats.

Muted

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284936#Comment_120284936

And stop trying to put words in my mouth

I quoted your words.

British on paper maybe but not by history

In 1951 the white population of Britain was 99.83%.

Maybe in another 100 years or so. Depends on your own views

Beasty

Boggles threadbanned

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283629#Comment_120283629

On the point of "bogus" asylum seekers, I would imagine most people in the country would have no issue at all with their claim being refused and them being asked to leave (otherwise the entire system would risk being undermined by spurious claims and applicants).

Overall, I was very reassured by the poll. Irish people seem to be taking a nuanced approach to the issue and are seemingly not being swayed at all by any extremists. It's perfectly legitimate to say they are fully in favour of asylum seekers being accepted, but also that they have a lot of concerns over the accommodation issue and whether the system has the capacity to cope at present.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284015#Comment_120284015

Why? Is the Ukrainian war more devastating than say the Syrian war? Why would you put Ukraine higher than any other war? Are you racist?

bertieinexile

Joe Costello, Labour Party Councillor and former TD, showed up at the Aughrim St protest last night. Came there to reach out to the protestors by letting them know non Ukrainians wouldn't be put in the Center.

I believe the smart political move is to welcome any councillors - even ones who joined counter demos only a month ago like Joe did.

It's all about normalisation and mainstreaming the protestors and their views. A councillor showing up at one of our protests is already something. Us reciprocating that would really put the wind up the NGOs and the government.

However that smart political move collided with the anger and resentment towards politicians that the protestors feel and Joe was run out of it.

A pity. Never mind. It's a learning process. Next time.

BTW the Tweet with the video is courtesy of Ireland Against Fascism who do invaluable work in highlighting and promoting material on our side especially advertising upcoming protests. It's my go to place for info on what's happening.

https://twitter.com/IrlagainstFash/status/1629209564728918016

Sweetemotion

Boards.ie, Ngo ye're talkin.

mcsean2163

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120285422#Comment_120285422

I remember being absolutely horrified by the invasion at the start of the war and in a way I did not feel about Yemen.

As far as I can tell we're supporting NATO? The USA are supplying Saudi with weapons and training to kill the Yemeni and our government doesn't protest that war.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_civil_war_%282014%E2%80%93present%29#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20UN%2C%20over,facilities%20due%20to%20the%20war.

Is it because Ukraine is closer? I don't remember anything similar during the Yugoslavia wars.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars

It could be it's because we are so in debt and reliant on US industry that the government just does whatever the EU/US wants us to do.

I'm not saying we should not be taking Ukranian's but rather looking back on it I don't understand what the governments rationale was for the new precedent. Why is it different to Yugoslavia or any other country?

clytemnestra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120285812#Comment_120285812

Agree, and I've said that before on these threads, what about the Yugoslavian wars of the '90s? People seem to have totally forgotten about them in their insistence that Ukraine is the worst conflict in Europe since WWII and that we have a massive obligation to refugees from there. Arguably, we had closer links to Yugoslavia; many Irish people visited Medjugorje for pilgrimages or went on sun holidays to Croatia before war broke out. Yet, we took in just a couple of thousand and they were mostly put up in temporary barracks and prefabs. Some stayed but most returned when the war was over. We have to ask ourselves what has fundamentally changed since then? The NGO behemoth? The power of the EU? Ireland being wealthier and a more attractive place for all kinds of migrants? Our politicians being weaker and less patriotic? The mind-rotting influence of social media with everyone addicted to the serotonin hits of likes and follows when they have the correct views on things? I don't know. But I do find the response to this war utterly surreal and disproportionate.

creeper1

Three main reasons I believe.

1. Ireland is richer now. In the 1980s Ireland wasn't rich and nobody wanted in. They can make good money now on the international protection racket and later when there is an amnesty in employment.

2. Social media - the world knows how the west live and they want a piece of the action. Much social media is people showing off and migrants show off how (relatively) they are better off in the west to those on their feed back home. Also don't get me started on O'Gorman.

3. Trafficking networks have evolved and NGOs are an integral part of that network. Care for Calais and the like. They also have marketing on tic toc or what have you.(Here I'm referring to the criminal traffickers)

SEPT 23 1989

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120286573#Comment_120286573

The Yugoslavian collapse was a much nastier affair on European soil than what’s happening (so far) in the Ukraine now

mass graves just across the water from Italy

peacekeeping and observing

a few you tube videos need to be watched by younger folk about that time

compare it to now

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120285192#Comment_120285192

People are often deported or leave voluntarily after being asked to leave. The anti-refugee people keep focusing on the numbers being accepted and ignoring that the system is quite robust and that people do get served with deportation notices.

My main problem with the Irish asylum system is that it moves way too slowly. It should be speeded up considerably, where people have their claim for asylum accepted and are able to move out of the direct provision system and into normal accommodation or are asked to leave the country, perhaps within a few short months.

clytemnestra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287341#Comment_120287341

Yes, and much closer to home. I knew people in the '90s who were fleeing that war and there were daily horrific updates as it was going on. Thousands of people displaced from their homes, incarcerated in camps, mass rapes, torture, murders, I heard some of these things firsthand but it was on the news every day for years. There were refugees, absolutely, seeking a place of safety. But no suggestion that they should permanently empty their populations into the rest of Europe. This is an entirely new concept.

Luxembourgo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287547#Comment_120287547

Notices to leave mean very little if people don't leave

trashcan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287547#Comment_120287547

A deportation order requires the person to remove themselves from the State in the first place. If they go, then they are not going voluntarily, they are complying with the DO. If they don’t go, then they are subject to removal by the authorities. Of course, human nature being what it is, many chose not to go and take their chances. Before a deportation order is issued the person must be served with an intention to deport. This gives them three options. Leave the State before a DO is made (this is the voluntary option. It’s advantage for the person is that if they leave at this stage then no DO is made, and they can potentially seek to re-enter the State legally in the future. Having a DO means you must stay out of the State, unless it’s revoked) The second option is that the person can make representations to the Minister as to why no DO should be made. These must be considered before a DO is signed. These considerations can be judicially reviewed, and if they are found to be legally flawed the Court can quash the DO and remit it back to the Minister to be considered again. The third option is to consent to the making of the DO, though I’m not quite sure why anyone would chose that option.

high_tower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120285558#Comment_120285558

I think they’re right to tell him to beat it. Keep the pressure up for longer and don’t be fooled - these politicians have shown their true colours so shouldn’t be given an easy ride.

theyd likely find suitable housing for them Ukrainians and then slip in the men from the other counties and it would be too late.

ArmaniJeanss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120282228#Comment_120282228

You can't just unilaterally do that though, unless the other safe country (be it France, Spain wherever) agree to allow a flight to take off/land with an incomplete manifest and passengers to disembark without documentation. And if they adopted the same 'no passport, back to the safe country you just came from' policy then the person in question just ends up in a continuous flying loop.

So clearly it's something that needs co-operation, international agreement etc. It becomes, not rocket science admittedly, but still very difficult.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120292609#Comment_120292609

Bollix. If someone leaves country A with a passport and arrives in country B without it, send them back to country A. There will be a record of them in country A, not country B’s problem.

Mullaghteelin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120287701#Comment_120287701

Earthquakes with final death tolls up to 100 times the figures given in the first news bulletins, along with days on end of survivors pulled alive from rubble, have unfortunately been a regular occurrence since TV news has existed.

We also never had suggestions to house earthquake victims before, as there has been from some quarters recently. Earthquake victims are free to rebuild their lives almost immediately, unlike in an ongoing conflict with no end in sight.

Wasn't there something we learned in school about how it was better to teach a man to fish than to give him fish? There are better forms of charity than just giving.

ArmaniJeanss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120292695#Comment_120292695

I understand it's your wish that the system worked this way.

The actual reality is that the staff of the airline won't just let people on without a passport/paperwork, the plane won't have landing rights without a complete manifest, and it would be a breach of all the current flying agreements between Ireland and other countries. Boring rules whereby we agree to have a thorough passport system in place to ensure that 100% of people who get on a plane are known.

It's a non-runner - it's akin to the hard-line Express readers wish of 'send them back on the next ferry' re the people who land on the English coast.

rgossip30

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120292772#Comment_120292772

Strange how some countries do it .

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120292695#Comment_120292695

Why should country A have to deal with the fallout of someone travelling to country B without the right documentation? Once they have arrived in country B and claimed asylum, it automatically becomes country B's problem.

No onus whatsoever on country A to play ball and have to permanently accommodate (or re-accommodate) people who have already made the decision to leave their jurisdiction for good.

Also, there is no law against an asylum seeker who has yet to claim asylum 'leaving' a country, so again, it is no longer country A's problem.

rgossip30

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293572#Comment_120293572

Asylum seekers do get returned it's part of the Dublin 3 convention if they have sought asylum in another country but a few only.

Cluedo Monopoly

Whether we like it or not, there will be more and more migrants trying to get into this country illegally. They are forced to do it, they have no choice. We would do the same in their shoes. We need to accept that and then figure out the best ways to handle it in a dignified way. This article highlights the reasons.

Africa acutely affected after a year of war in Ukraine (rte.ie)

Africa caught in a 'perfect storm' of challenges a year on in Ukraine war.

Irishman Stephen Jackson, the UN's resident coordinator in Kenya, described the war as just the latest in a series of global factors that have caused a "perfect storm".

There was the Covid-19 pandemic, the climate crisis, and the Ukraine conflict - what he refers to as the three Cs.

"Already in 2021, the climate crisis was beginning with a drought emergency across the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea," he said.

"Roll the tape forward to 2023, we’ve had five failed rainy seasons in a row and we’re about to go into our sixth. We’ve never had that in 40 years."

Kenya currently imports 67% of its wheat from Russia, and 22% from Ukraine. Mr Jackson added that the loss of this import, combined with the drought, has resulted in the current crisis.

In addition to food insecurity for millions, the fuel shortage combined with increased costs of public transport has meant that many have not been able to travel to work.

high_tower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293669#Comment_120293669

We don’t owe them anything. Any “refugee” who travels across multiple safe counties to land on an island at the edge of Europe which juts happens to have the best benefits doesn’t fit the criteria in my eyes.

those counties have always been and always will be disasters , why are they all arriving to Ireland now ??

lmao10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293811#Comment_120293811

Can you use common sense for a second and imagine if the nearest country had to take every refugee from that country. Just imagine what would happen.

high_tower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293835#Comment_120293835

They don’t have to take every refugee as they’re almost all trying to get to the countries further north. When you allow everyone on your created greater demand to get in.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293811#Comment_120293811

Firstly they are not All arriving here now.

Even if you change the criteria or benefits, they will still come. You might see more undocumented illegals that decline to seek asylum for fear of deportation but they will still come in larger numbers. This is the world we live in now. It's flee or misery/death for many. Accept that.

The EU and UK need to come together and put a plan together for this mass migration. Africa sure as hell won't fix the problems affecting them.

The thread title is a nonsense really.

lmao10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293891#Comment_120293891

But your argument is that the refugees are travelling past "safe countries". What do you think would happen if the nearest safe country had to take in every single refugee? It's not realistic when you actually sit down and think about what you're saying, is it?

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120293905#Comment_120293905

What we're dealing with is almost the extreme opposite though, people going out of their way, passing many safe countries, to get to relatively remote island. It's piss taking of the highest order, and is very hard to justify in terms of actual need.