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

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.

Indefinately. Assist them with making an AS claim in another jurisdiction.

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.

Here's a question for you.

As you know, or have read; there are persons traveling here destroying their travel documents en route, then present and claim asylum.

In your opinion: this is good, and a proper way to leverage the Geneva Conventions?

Or like I believe; this is an abuse and should be stopped.

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.

I'm pretty confident that if you snuck across the border into Vietnam, and were later apprehended, they would have no problem keeping you in detention indefinitely until you begged & bribed your way out.

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

I think some on this thread are guilty of what is called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy". Because a particular solution, intended to solve a particular aspect of a larger problem, does not solve every aspect of the problem, it is therefore invalid.

So for example, refusing entry to those known to have deliberately destroyed their passports on the flight into Ireland may cause an increase in those attempting to arrive at the country by boat. Therefore, they argue, we should not refuse entry to those destroying their passports or, by extension, without valid visas etc.