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

You just said there is no legal obligation. The court found there is. Your argument has been proved wrong by the court judgement.

I think people underestimate the disdain many people have for SF. Despite social media hating the big two, the party most didn't want to see in power according to exit polls at the last election was SF.

Anyways off topic, so apologies to the mods.

I do think/agree that's immigration is unlikely to get people elected as single issue candidates, however I think the governments handling of the last few years will influence where votes go. How many I'm not sure

I would like just like to say in relation to videos of late. A guy dumping off on a roof of a car (didn't see that one and probably won't look it up), a guy going after women with a hammer, an African woman doing some weird ritual dance in Mullingar (clearly mentally ill), Somalians and Algerians throwing chairs at each other and of course our friend threatening social services while watching an enchanting Nikki Minaj video.

This ladies and gentlemen are our saviours who will fund our pensions.

Oh heck!

The UK had a recent PM (Truss) who had a policy of spooking the corporations and very nearly crashed the entire economy overnight : she is believed to have cost her country around £40bn in the process. These type of populist cranks should be allowed nowhere near any government.

If that 'protest vote' goes overwhelmingly to other parties that also favour (in some cases even more) liberal immigration policies it won't be recognised as such by the government parties and thus won't serve any purpose...If SF and SD gain significantly at the expense of the government parties the lesson those parties will take is they need to move further to the left, maybe not specifically on immigration but that is likely to be part of the package...

If some SF voters are opposed to immigration or current immigration policies, then they don't even understand what a left wing or 'social justice' party is supposed to be. The whole point of left wing politics and / or social justice policies would be equality for all and ensuring that minorities are not marginalised or blamed for the ills of the country.

Those people who claim to be SF voters and yet are also anti-immigration sound more like closet right wingers i.e. they have attached themselves to the wrong party.

But if none does in time for the next general election then nobody gains or loses (much) from the issue IMO, which suits the established parties just fine. I don't buy your prediction of a major shift to SF in protest at gtovernment immigration policies...

Your demanding an answer despite never answering a question when asked for a debate?

Where is the proof of your claim that "The legal obligation is only applicable because we havent invoked the Opt Out clause."

How is it countries such as Australia, Japan, Denmark, Singapore etc which aren't beyond the pale rouge states get to have control over their immigration policy but seemingly international courts take this away from Ireland?

I think if its now unlawful to provide accommodation the same should be applied to citizens !

This seems to be a good argument for a limit on asylum seekers if accommodation cannot be provided . An interesting scenario is what happens if accommodation is still not provided does the court sue the state ?

https://www.thejournal.ie/high-court-rules-failure-to-provide-afghan-asylum-seeker-with-accomodation-unlawful-6050116-Apr2023/

EU citizens can come for 3 months and get benefits while looking for employment .

You are making an assertion that rights only accrue on the basis of opting into something but theres no evidence behind your claim. Just your claim.

A clown government

I sure 50 locals would appreciate being housed permanently