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

.....

Japan has recently shown great kindness towards Ukrainian refugees. They have admitted over two thousand. This is a high number for a country far away from another continent with no responsibility for what is happening.

Wisely this does not signal a change in policy generally for asylum seekers.

Ireland has done way too much for asylum seekers already. It's staggering generosity that has been shown. Nigerians ( a country with a massive and growing population) and others presenting can not be entertained. Ireland cannot save the world and cannot be Santa Claus to the world.

Ah will you stop. They raised the pension age from 62 to 64 in France in response to people living longer. The state cannot afford the social welfare commitments from 62 to 83 (life expectancy) and the lazy French need to get over themselves. And it's not reflective of a general breakdown in society either. Bunch of drama queens on this thread. Mon Dieu.

But the point is that there are large numbers of asylum refusals as well. As many people are turned down for asylum as are granted it. Turning up at immigration and giving a made up sob story guarantees you nothing.

I wonder also if posters here are aware that around 12,000 people applied for work / residence visas last year, had their application declined and were refused entry to the country.

For sure, but the assumption must be that considerable numbers are subsequently leaving the country and taking their chances elsewhere (as there is no obligation on them to inform the state what their future plans are.....they are now outside the system, with no legal entitlement to work or claim benefits).

As for the amnesty, it was intended to bring long term undocumented people into the system. You had to be living in the state for at least four years before you could apply for settled status. Not sure though why this would be a particular focus for people in Ireland - there are undocumented and black economy workers in every single country in Europe (the UK for example appears to have a much bigger black economy per capita than we do).

But even EU citizens cannot travel to Ireland to claim benefits. You have to be legally working and paying taxes in Ireland for two years before you can sign on. The idea that people would move to another country just to sign on doesn't exactly sound that plausible either. Would you move to the UK or Germany just in order to sign on the dole there? If you wanted to better yourself as a person and build up some savings, you would definitely be looking for full time employment.

Oh yeah the likes of the Healy Raes , Mattie McGrath and Michael Lowry are surely the people we need driving change in Ireland.

🤣🤣🤣

Hopefully they come soon and take away the socialists

I'm afraid that's not correct. Regarding freedom of travel, an EU citizen has the right to travel to another EU country as a job seeker, and reside there for 90 days, if memory serves, after which they must have the means to support themselves (job, savings, etc.), or return to their EU state of origin. As a job seeker, a non-resident EU citizen is not supposed to have access to the social welfare system of the EU state they moved to, seeking employment.

For a person to claim a benefit, such as Jobseeker's Benefit (JB), they must have a minimum number of contributions, two years worth in the case of JB. (Social welfare contributions can be "transferred" from EU states, or other states with which we have bilateral agreements, though there is generally a minimum number of credited contributions from this state needed before you could qualify for a benefit payment; see here for more details, if interested).

An allowance, however, is not based on contributions, but is instead a means-tested payment. Examples include Jobseeker's Allowance (JA), Disability Allowance (DA), etc. If someone comes over as a job seeker, they would not be eligible for JA, for instance. If, however, they find employment, and happen to be lose that job, they would bypass the issue about not being eligible for a social welfare payment in Ireland. For instance, if someone worked as little as a single day in a mushroom house, that'd be all they need. The next hurdle they'd have to cross, however, would be the Habitual Residence Condition (HRC); more details can be seen here and here. The HRC considers five factors:

• Length and continuity of residence in Ireland
• Length and purpose of any absence from Ireland
• Nature and pattern of employment
• Your main centre of interest
• Your future intentions to live in Ireland as it appears from the evidence

The HRC can be quite nebulous, but, if a person can show they have ties to Ireland (such as family living here), have cut certain ties to their state of origin (such as closing bank accounts there, for instance), and that they intend to remain in Ireland/that it is now their main centre of interest, they can satisfy the HRC condition, and be eligible for JA, even if they've only worked here for a very short time.

I don't agree that putting a rural/urban divide on things is the right course to take. TBH, I'd take an extremely negative view that it is a distraction to avoid dealing with the actual issue for Irish people as a nation

The problem is not an internal Irish dispute between "Dubs" and "Culchies". Or X county and Y county. Only Irish people give those identities any value. This is something new - or something old. Like 12th century old, where the indigenous people are still squabbling about the petty local allegiances to chiefs whilst something new is arriving in massive numbers from across the sea.

We've seen this sort of establishment political response in the US, and even the UK, where the dominant political ideology attempts to disarm and defuse the indigenous people's reaction to mass migration into red/blue state nonsense or con/lab crap. The indigenous people recognise a scenario where they are being marginalised is a bad outcome, and the political class that are doing it to them (i.e. all of them - red, blue, con, lab) attempt to misdirect their discontent into some tactical disagreements about tax rates, fox hunting, gun rights, "flegs" or values (whatever those are) as opposed to existensial questions about why London -the English capital - has a minority English population inside just 50 years.

Ultimately the hoped for end result is a "Northern Ireland" scenario where the locals are bitterly divided over minor street issues about who marches where, while the real state level policies are decided by "compromise". The repeated excuse is that the local, sovereign governments hands are tied by international or supranational commitments. This is a total lie. Look at the Stephen Lawrence killing - the UK government literally sent a Royal Navy nuclear submarine to spy on the the holiday discussions of a bunch of young men they suspected had killed SL. When the UK government wants to, they can move heaven and earth to try (and fail) to convict innocent men. When it comes to groups of men journeying across the English Channel in small boats? Nope, nothing that can be done. The Royal Navy nuclear subs stay in port. International laws, etc. The limits to their power apply when they want.

So forgive me if I am negative about some "new" political movement trying to misdirect Irish people into a rural/urban divergence instead of dealing with the real problem of a new Fingal. And if this new movement is attempting to cast it as Dubs/Culchies they are either honestly wrong, or they are maliciously attempting to install the same dumb US/UK politics. We end up with two parties who are viciously, personally opposed to each other on irrelevant topics but who both agree mass migration is good, private monopolies are good and we must wage the forever war on (China/Russia/Iran - delete as appropriate). Its almost laughable - all the dumb 90's "reformers" who talked about leaving FF/FG "civil war" politics behind end up in exactly the same dynamic where they agree on 100% of the day to day management of the state (endless mass migration) and only disagree about inconsequential nonsense: whose grandad was in the GPO/whose grandad was a racist.

Interesting post.

I don't think you're right in the way you characterise the Farmers Alliance as a Country versus City thing.

Listening to them it's more about

a. Producers being crucified by middle men and

b. Green policy being imposed on them in ways that don't even make sense.

That second one - the top down imposition on communities by an out of touch government - is what makes them allies not enemies of the urban protestors.

The Farmers Alliance are exercised about greenways and green policy demands for the same reason East Wall is out protesting about the direct provision centres being foisted on them.

I see the energy from the protests of the last few months is now starting to be cashed out in more structured alliances and arrangements - the parents rights/anti trans groups (Aontu meeting about this this evening in Artane), communities with DP centres moving on to legal objections. And especially, this Farmers Alliance and the the Rural Independents initiative.

Still scattered, like you'd expect from a ground up movement, but starting to mature and move on.

Most importantly they're now organising in ways that may be a political threat and that's what gets results. The IFA are already responding to the Farmers Alliance by criticising green policy themselves.

I've been thinking a lot about what the urban equivalent of the Farmers Alliance and the Rural Indo's initiative would be.

Particularly the messaging.

You've got housing, emigration, hospital lists as the main issues of the day. As PBP will tell you. But although they're all tied in with immigration you can't just come out and say Immigration!

That marginalises you. You get written off as sounding like the National Party.

Not saying that's a well founded reaction, but it's just how the message comes across to the mainstream right now.

Then there's also the other very strong message that this movement isn't about left and right, it's top bottom. It's about communities being imposed on by government. You can even tell NGO people that's what East Wall is about and get a positive reaction.

Is there any way to combine the two messages. Yes.

Communities are having housing lists, rental accommodation, schools, GP practices, overrun by the imposition on them of this unpopular policy.

There is no concern for communities being shown by government and they're being made to suffer.

Run on that in a local election.

Surprisingly in the clip I saw of Verona Murphy at the Farmer's Alliance meeting she was making exactly this argument.

Watch this space. There might even be candidates you wouldn't be embarrassed to vote for.

Migration pact was voted on by MEP's today.

It is also aimed to speed up the return of migrants

Italy seem to be getting totally battered with record numbers this year already.