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

Well, firstly there's the overarching fact that undocumented persons still have rights and still are subject to fair procedures. There is no distinction in international law that says from the moment someone is undocumented they lose all their rights — so there is still a need to actually process them on arrival.

It's in that process that the difficulty arises. Even if they are rejected, the practicalities and feasibility of deportation is often hamstrung by various elements such as the difficulty in determining the country of origin definitively, successfully co-operating with the proper authority of the origin country to even deal with the matter and accept the deportee, or indeed getting another EU country through which they travelled to accept the re-assignment of this deportee (i.e. the old stick 'em back on the plane to Belgium). This has long been one of the major difficulties with deportations and I have long said that the answer to this lies at the EU level — that through collaboration and combined effort the EU states can create a more effective and functioning system for deportations.

So no, there is not necessarily an explicit obligation to "accept" undocumented persons but there are basic obligations that combine to require that you do have to at least give them fair procedure. The problem is what you actually do with them if that procedure rejects their application.

Well yeah....to an extent....but it's also possible that someone with nefarious intent could just enter the country legally (or via the legal entry with illegal or fraudulent means) right? It's not a risk that's limited to undocumented persons but is a risk that's inherent in the entire system of global travel including the openness of the world to tourism etc.

But anyway, my issue with it more so is that it will continue to sap the good will of people towards those who are fleeing genuine persecution and danger and also represents a form of migration that is difficult to control.

Like there is nobody who really disagrees with you here. If you enter without documents, especially in the case that it's likely you destroyed them, it should stand against your claim and you should be denied entry. Great — you then proceed to attempt to remove that person but nobody is accepting them. Then you have the problem of what you do with them — this is the practical problem that often leads to them just being given leave to remain.

What I can't understand is when people say we can't return them to where they came from if they show up with no ID.

Their is no direct lights from where a lot of these people are coming from.

If they are scanned before a flight, then when they arrive with no ID the airport will have a history of what countries they travelled through.

Return them to where they first boarded a plane and let them improve security of there borders.

Doesn't seem like a whole lot of effort to be implemented by airlines, I thought a database would already exist with your passport history.

There's a lot of problems with this though. Not least among them os that imprisoning someone for an indefinite period for showing up without a passport is pretty harsh but, but even if one plays the miniature violin and says boo hoo to that, it doesn't really stop the problem.

By all means, these types of centres are something I think we probably will need to eventually have. But it's definitely not going to solve the problem of what you do with the ones you can't remove from the country. I was looking there at stats in relation to similar types of deportation centres in the UK and it seems that pretty much half of them never end up leaving at all.

Well hold on. That's not really how it works because there is an end point to that. The accused is entitled to fair procedures on arrest, and will be entitled to a fair trial and legal representation. If they are charged with a crime and the authorities wish to pursue that, the fact that the accused simply refuses to acknowledge their own name doesn't create some interminable legal limbo. Their identity would become a matter of evidence along with any other evidence linking that particular individual to a crime whether or not that individual identifies themselves.

The figures I saw from the US suggested they only deport about 18%. I think similar figures have been shared here from the UK and Australia.

Id say there's several reasons behind that figure being so low. One being that the unwillingness of countries to accept deportees.

After that perhaps you can force airlines to provide documentation, but the same can't be done for people arriving by sea, so when that option is chosen as an alternative it's even more difficult to deal with.

Yes but thats the end point right ? You would be in contempt of court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to mention whatever other term is imposed for the crime. The convicted person is then released from prison back into the community.

There is a clear distinction here. What you seem to be talking about is effectively imprisonment for an undefined term but also ignoring the fact that the end point will still remain in many if not most cases that the detained migrant will simply be released anyway.

But they must also obey the laws of the country and I think there are laws requiring you to have the correct documentation when entering.

Well, when you talk about "countries that deport illegal migrants", Ireland is one of them. Ireland does deport people...as does France, as does Germany, as does Belgium etc.

The problem is that deportation can simply be difficult because it requires the co-operation of either the person themselves or the authorities of wherever it is you are trying to send them — which isn't always forthcoming. Even our fellow EU member states, the countries with whom we have the strongest and friendliest economic and diplomatic relationship, don't always co-operate with us on deportation.

I think, however, returning illegal migrants before they have officially entered the country is not the same as deporting migrants who may have been in the country some time.

I believe if you fail to provide valid documents upon entry to to the US, you are put on the next flight back and billed for the return flight (not that I imagine they get much money back but that is not the point).

They do have illegal migration into the US but I think it is mainly through the southern border.

Leave out the airlines obligations just for a moment and focus on border control/access to airside.

In all my travels nowadays I have to scan my Boarding Card before entering the security area. Presumably the bar code contains all my information. That is captured somewhere for security purposes I'm sure so why not share that information with all EU airports? Therefore if someone arrives without documents, the information is available or already shared by Border/Security control at the departure airport.

Would probably need an EU wide agreement or something. And there is possibly something I am missing in this modest proposal. GDPR (if it's an issue) can surely be waived in the interests of International security and illegal immigration. I don't mind being wrong and would welcome comments on why this could not happen going forward.

The airlines appear to need ID via your boarding card to make sure you are you and are taking the correct plane, and yikes! ..... in the event that the plane crashes you can be identified by your seat number or something.

In fairness, no one is suggesting building a wall. The most I think people want to see is proper checking of documents at airports and refusal of entry where documents have been deliberately destroyed on the flight in order to hide identity or nationality. This is not an unreasonable request. If they had their passport getting on a plane they should have it when going through passport control.

I think the only way you could refuse entry is with some kind of a pre-clearance system.

I'd guess very expensive and would maybe require EU and UK co-operation?

After that, what are you going to do when people start arriving by sea, then will you build the wall?

Small boats and cargo containers.

I believe people trafficking into a wealthy country like Ireland is quite profitable, I don't think the fortress approach is going to work, given that it's been unsuccessful in so many other countries.

Besides we also have to build a wall along the NI border, how's that going to work?

But they're still on the island, what do you do with them once you've 'refused permission to entry'.

I guess the reason the US can but people back on a return flight is because they've agreed with the airline beforehand. As part of the pre-clearance system they can greatly limit the likelihood of somebody seeking asylum once they arrive at the airport.

We can't do that without a pre-clearance system.

And it still leaves the problem of what are we going to do with people arriving by sea or via NI.

It's not really that different in the EU — aside from the fact that Europe has a much more complex geopolitical conundrum. Many irregular migrants first enter the EU over land borders or the Mediterranean, the same way as migrants first travel to Mexico to land cross into the US.

The US has two borders. The northern one isn't problematic so their focus is concentrated on the south — bearing in mind the US is also the supreme dominant force of the Americas. It still however relies on co-operation with Mexico and has dedicated agreements in place on deportations (Mexico has a vested interest to co-operate as it has its own migration crisis).

Europe on the other hand is the closest of the Global North to Africa and the Middle East and has a myriad of borders which include borders with countries that are hostile. We are effectively in a proxy war with Russia and Belarus — countries which have deliberately acted as conduits for illegal migration into the EU (and indeed which have literally caused the current refugee crisis here). We lack focused agreements with refugee origin countries and in some cases those origin countries have no major interest or proper administration to handle it.

These are things which need to be looked at, but we have to first acknowledge the fact that geography deals us a pretty bad hand in Europe and it doesn't all come down to soft hearts and snowflakes.

Still doesn't, in my opinion, justify allowing people entry who fail visa requirements or don't have a passport (I have already posted an official document asserting the immigration officer's right to refuse entry on this basis). I would have thought the justification for refusal is even greater in cases where people deliberately destroyed their passport en route when we know they needed the document to board the plane in the first place.

I'm assuming the person in that video agreed to return home?

From what I can gather, when people arrive in Australia without valid documentation, and they don't agree to return home, they are placed in indefinite detention.

But his has now been deemed unlawful by the Australian High Court.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67353831