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

Ooh it's all the big bad meeja's fault? Listen the big beasts in the big parties are more than capable of signalling and dog-whistling on this issue without getting tarred with the racist brush, by anyone credible anyway. See some of the 'Rural Independents' are doing it and nobody is calling them puppets of Justin Barret or whatever.

AFAICS most of the real nastiness in this debate is coming from the other side. Which anti-racist activists have done anything like this?

But this is just a hopelessly narrow way of appreciating how this all works. The whole point of refugees "skipping" countries is that the European nations have resolved among themselves to cooperate on this in order to avoid the scenario where a small group of countries bears the effort alone. If we all adopted a policy of saying "right let France / Italy / Greece etc etc deal with this as they are a safe country" then this is effectively putting all the pressure on those countries. The problem with that of course is that we are part of a co-operative alliance with these countries that has yielded and continues to yield huge benefits for the development of this country. But the term "alliance" does not mean "only accepting the easy beneficial bits and leaving the harder negative aspects to someone else".

As I've said time and time again — any appreciation for how the world works would lead you to understand that we don't get to be a perpetual beneficiary of being plugged into the developed capitalist system with our European allies without accepting that we must also carry burdens with our allies. The idea that refugees should simply only ever be hosted at the exact point where whatever specific danger or strife they faced is out of reach is one of those things that sounds somewhat sensible in simplistic terms but is fairly hopeless when it crashes into the wall of reality.

The unasked question in that poll though is 'how much does it matter to you?'. Like a polling company could ask any bland Yes/No question ("have crisps lost their flavour?', "are neck tattoos a bit icky?") and by the nature of a Yes/No question there will be a majority one way or the other. However, whether it's a big issue (most important, top 5, top 10 factor at election time, potential swing of your vote) is a key bit of information before any political party runs with something.

You may well be proven correct that it is an important issue, but just because a majority answered a particular way in a poll isn't of itself that crucial.

I wasn't claiming they were going to transform the situation I was using them to counter yer man's ridiculous assertion that politicians can't take an immigration-critical stand without being run out of town on a rail. Independents TDs have been doing this for years

and AFAIK there have been no pitchfork wielding mobs outside their homes.

Hospitality industry liquidations up 200% on last year. Who could'a guessed. Let's hope the refugee industry have better figures!

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/07/17/significant-collapse-in-hospitality-as-insolvencies-up-48-in-first-six-months/

Your argument is essentially that we must take as many Ukrainians as arrive at the door, because if we don't we'll end up with a lot more from places in Africa or the Middle East and better we have the ones that are at least a bit like us.

Expect the "you big racist" brigade to be all over you for that one! Personally though I don't give a toss where they're from or what sad story they have. We have done more than enough - so much that we are ruining our own country in the process and creating massive future social and economic problems down the road in addition to the ones we're already seeing.

As I said, if they don't arrive with a job lined up and money to support their own needs (housing, health, food etc), then they should be turned away until we get some sort of handle on the situation we have now. I feel no obligation or responsibility to anyone arriving from the places you've mentioned. I can sympathise with their situation of course - but it's not my/our job to solve their problems and I feel zero guilt saying that.

My responsibility is to my family and their wellbeing and future. As a native citizen I am entitled to expect that our State will put our needs above all else and only once that has been done, THEN consider how we might help those less fortunate elsewhere - and again, remember that we give away hundreds of millions annually (increasing to almost/just over a BILLION in recent years) annually in foreign aid ON TOP OF all this. This is something we were still doing by the way even in the depths of the Recession years. We were essentially borrowing money (and paying interest on it!) to give it away to others!!

We have done far more than our part on these issues and in the process deepened/worsened all the problems we've seen here for decades. It's time we cleaned up our own mess rather than making it worse by importing the problems of others or pissing away money abroad while telling people here that we can't afford essential services or treatments for them or their families.

As I've said before, the reason a modern society functions is based on the concept of a social contract. You play by the rules, work, pay taxes, contribute etc and in return your Government provides services and access to opportunities to better yourself and your future, with a safety net in the form of financial or healthcare support if you need it. Policies and laws are decided upon by politicians that are voted in and out at periodic intervals as a reflection of the changing wishes of the people..

..... or at least that's how it SHOULD be! I certainly don't work and lose half my income in tax or charges to then be told I can't see a doctor when I need to or must sit 14 hours (yes I've done that!) in A&E to be seen, or that I can't buy a home at a reasonable price, or that I have to rent one at huge expense an hour away from my job and family while others who haven't contributed and have no entitlement to these things are then given those things for free or nearly free (but really at my and other taxpayers expense) - and then to top it off I can't even holiday with my family in the country anymore because whole tourist areas have been handed over to the "needy".

I used to have a far more forgiving and tolerant outlook to these things, but charity begins at home and we have not only enough genuine and needy cases here as it is - we're actively adding to them as a result of these "strategies" (and for those who think that there is no concept of cause and effect involved, please!). Everything comes from the same limited pot at the end of the day, and the effects on critical services and infrastructure through adding a hundred thousand more needy people to feed, shelter and support doesn't happen in a parallel universe. We're at the point where what is given to one is taken away from someone else (as we've seen reported with medical cards being removed from people to meet this new demand).

I'll keep saying it - enough is enough!

“At a global level we continue to grapple with economic uncertainty, high interest rates, and a rising cost of living,”

There's more then hospitality referenced in that article. Not does it say anything about refugees being the cause.

Yeah it needs a global approach.

And theres a lot of globe and a lot of countries in Africa and m.e.n.a.

So why are 'refugees' not wider and more thinly spread over the many countries. Why is Europe playing its part while others arent.

I mean the wealth has certainly spread, thats why I posted the video of the skylines of African countries.

If you can afford a skyline in the same league as New York, if you can afford a megaproject, then you can afford to take in refugees.

70% of refugees worldwide are in neighbouring countries.

source: Unhcr, figures at a glance

Not good enough.

Also; that being the case, whats wrong with UK flying the channel hoppers to Rwanda.

Could it be that the people invading the English coast are choosy, and too good for Rwanda.

Desperate refugees in need of help, just not from neighboring countries, or any north African countries, ... or Rwanda.

Or France.

"As I've said before, the reason a modern society functions is based on the concept of a social contract. You play by the rules, work, pay taxes, contribute etc and in return your Government provides services and access to opportunities to better yourself and your future, with a safety net in the form of financial or healthcare support if you need it. Policies and laws are decided upon by politicians that are voted in and out at periodic intervals as a reflection of the changing wishes of the people..

..... or at least that's how it SHOULD be! I certainly don't work and lose half my income in tax or charges to then be told I can't see a doctor when I need to or must sit 14 hours (yes I've done that!) in A&E to be seen, or that I can't buy a home at a reasonable price, or that I have to rent one at huge expense an hour away from my job and family while others who haven't contributed and have no entitlement to these things are then given those things for free or nearly free (but really at my and other taxpayers expense) - and then to top it off I can't even holiday with my family in the country anymore because whole tourist areas have been handed over to the "needy"."

Couldn't agree more - this state has broken the 'social contract' with it's own citizens. And the chickens will come to roost when they come looking for votes.

It appears your issue is totally with government on their failures and nothing to do with refugees. Which is fair enough. But that's what you should be complaining about. Those issues were here before recent refugee arrivals.

You keep making this point but as many have said we are where we are and it makes no sense to just put even more pressure on services and housing that are already inadequate

Correlation is not causation. You and the author of that article are drawing a link between two events that may not have any significant connection. It seems more likely to me that Cairns and her handlers looked back at her sppech and realised she had said some stuff that might give ammunition to the SDs' rivals on the left, who I am sure she is far more concerned about than any angry twitter mob. Yes it is fairly unusual for a politician to explicitly retract something they have said in the Dail but Cairns is a young and inexperienced party leader: in seeking to be sensitive to the wishes of the local community she may have gone further in that direction than she had intended...