Immigration to Ireland - policies, challenges, and solutions *Read OP before posting*

I am pro-immigration in the sense that I think it is something that is going to happen anyway and so it's better that we make the best of it. I also happen to think that migration is a pretty useful pressure valve for struggling countries that enables its people to seek opportunity and add value elsewhere in the world—and this ability to move around is better than what we have had for most of history when humans wanted to enjoy resources elsewhere (ie, imperialism, colonialism and unsustainably destructive wars).

Do I believe that migration at current levels is problematic? Generally, no — but I would say irregular migration is definitely a problem that needs to be seriously addressed as Europe is geographically the most attractive and easily-reached first world region for regions where there are ongoing conflicts or abject poverty.

But I think people need to broaden their scope slightly if they really want to address that — because in the EU context anyway it's something that requires international co-operation to back up the frontline nations and to create a more cohesive policy where countries actually work together on things like deportations rather than against each other. I think the new EU Asylum & Migration Pact (which absolutely nobody on here ever talks about) is a step in the right direction — but it's not going to solve it fully.

I've been thinking about this and I think that given some on the right like to use the term 'Snowflake' to describe some on the left, perhaps 'NannyNeeders' might apply to some on the right?

If a 'Snowflake' is someone over-sensitive to the slightest offence or political incorrectness, a 'NannyNeeder' might be who someone who would love to cry about the 'nanny state', but who actually should have a nanny looking out for them when they go online.

This post now has nearly 20 likes. What is it with the tendency to blindly accept online content as correct, regardless of how suspicious it looks?

I've done some searching around this graph and I can't find any verifiable source. The only place I see it posted is a couple of online forums where it gets pointed out as fake.

Aside from that I'm suspicious on the grounds that the original poster has refused to share any kind of source. After that the statistics it represents seem so out of line with any other reports (some of which do show increased crime rates among certain migrant groups in Germany but nothing close to this extent). Then there's a number of pointers in the graph itself, it gives some countries in their English names, some in German. It's missing several countries and regions entirely. And it lists 'Balkan' as a country.

It might will be that this is a genuine graph, though one generated from very carefully selected factors, but I just find it amazing how many people seem to take something like this as true at face value. It scares me. It's often pointed out that when the far-right came to prominence around the world in the twenties and thirties their use of the then new mass-medias, particularly radio, played a significant part. Yet here we are again with the same type of bile dispensed, now online, to a willing audience.

'There culture is in direct conflict with our culture, and rather than change to ours they want us to change to accommodate them.'

Whose culture and who wants us to change?

They're not true, a fabrication.

the actual figures for Algerian suspects in 2017 was 1.6 per 100,000

linked here. Pdf format for their crime statistics.

You miss the point very spectacularly! Cutbacks, less beds, less staff equals reduced access.

Not the other way round.

I don't see how you can refute my points at all.

You did not 'notice' any issues because as you state you were younger but an insiders' perpective / older person 's viewpoint of what happened to reduce our pretty good health service of the 60s and 70s to where it is now was given.

Accept it or not. But don' t try to make out it is anything else but a downgrading of service.

Our population is going to keep on growing regardless of immigration and services need to be restored and increased to keep up.

Edited tiresome tupos.. typos!

Its the townspeople ganging up to burn poor Shrek out!

An innocent creature of a different colour.

Edited to add.. This post is not serious, in case some people mysteriously take it as such!

No ,it's not that either

It absolutely has nothing to do with this discussion or this thread

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-41329981.html

"The Government is to further crack down on the 60% of people who try to seek asylum here without a proper basis for doing so.

Quicker processing times of asylum applications will clamp down on people who do not meet international protection criteria and instead are coming here for economic reasons, Tánaiste Michéal Martin and Integration Minister Roderic O'Gorman have said.

Mr Martin said he accepted concerns around the additional pressure health, education and other services may come under when new asylum centres are opened in communities."

The amount of posters here on the highest of horses explaining about visa's, "not economic migrants " "you're scare mongering" " another ill informed " "far-right racists".... like come on guys it doesn't work name calling people if you've nothing to add to the argument! So are the Gov far-right now after admitting there's near 2/3 people arriving for asylum are complete bogus while most of the posters here were pointed this out the past year?

Other posters mention we've plenty of space because of our landmass and pre famine population ??? from the link above "Mr Martin said he accepted concerns around the additional pressure health, education and other services may come under when new asylum centres are opened in communities."

The Gov know people want tighter controls or a complete revamp to deter bogus asylum seekers. All spin within an election year, why haven't they cracked down before when people were protesting?

Thoughts & can we give up the name calling, smug remarks ?

"There is probably zero chance the left leaning parties will have anything to say about this."

Or some of the posters that were spinning everyone's concern with bogus asylum to right wing racist views, either they spin it to another level or completely double down.

Some progress but yet again, a referendum and election coming up so it's complete damage control. I don't trust the current bunch, if they got reelected they'll be back to name calling people who want boarders policed properly. They've (Gov parties & SF) lost a lot of support already imo no matter the latest opinion polls.

I've called people out for scare mongering here on the basis of their claims that IPA's require some (impossible to provide) level of 'vetting' that the rest of our society doesn't.

After that, the article you've shared is paywalled, but it's false to claim that 60 percent of claims being rejected equates to 60 of asylum seekers being bogus.

The process of being approved for refugee status is quite subjective so it's likely that of the 60 percent rejected some are legitimate claims which are wrongly rejected, some are people who believe they have a genuine claim but don't meet the criteria, and finally some are bogus.

The fact that you've jumped to the worst possible conclusion for this group doesn't necessarily make you prejudiced, or a racist, but surely you can see that it makes you look that way?

I'm actually in the belief, sorry not been smart that you're trolling.

"After that, the article you've shared is paywalled"

It's not paywalled for me?

"but it's false to claim that 60 percent of claims being rejected equates to 60 of asylum seekers being bogus."

It's the Irish Government (from the horses mouth) with the most left leaning politician Roderic O'Gorman explaining that 60% nearly 2/3 of these folk arriving seeking asylum are bogus

"The process of being approved for refugee status is quite subjective so it's likely that of the 60 percent rejected some are legitimate claims which are wrongly rejected, some are people who believe they have a genuine claim but don't meet the criteria, and finally some are bogus."

"Legitimate claims which are wrongly rejected", they are mostly economical migrations seeking asylum but don't meet the legitimate or genuine criteria that's true been explained from our minsters in power!

"The fact that you've jumped to the worst possible conclusion for this group doesn't necessarily make you prejudiced, or a racist, but surely you can see that it makes you look that way?"

Whatever makes you feel better about me I couldn't give a fiddlers , you're still on you're high horse talking and lecturing me on whom I am. You're throwing a fit because even the Gov admitted 2/3's of people arriving for asylum are bogus and are economical migrates. Am all for emigration once it's controlled, we'll always need emigration but with people with skills and can support themselves....Is that much to ask or " make me look a certain way" ?

Quicker processing times of asylum applications will clamp down on people who do not meet international protection criteria 

So basically they're going to do what everybody has said they should be doing, speeding up the system.

That's good

Like I said I can't read the article, it's paywalled.

So I can't see if O'Gorman used the term bogus or not.

If he did, parroting something that's racist or prejudiced, even if it's from a politician chasing votes, equally makes you look that way.

Your claim is equivalent to saying that everyone who fails their driving test is a dangerous driver, or that anyone who doesn't get the points for medicine is a thicko.

I'm quite sure plenty who apply for asylum do so knowing they don't meet the criteria, but until I see some reliable indicator of how many, I won't go jumping to conclusions.