Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1452453455457458558

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭creeper1


    What is going on absolutely ridiculous.

    I'm sure there are poor,weak and those in danger from regimes in the third world.

    That's not what is arriving.

    I saw the pictures from rathmines. They are all well dressed with nice luggage and strong men.

    If we are to accept anyone should not they come directly from refugee camps were WE choose and not smugglers?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭enricoh


    Government now looking to mix in asylum seekers with ukranians. A nice thank you gift to the local communities who were supportive of ukranians.

    Should be a vote winner!





  • Registered Users Posts: 2,568 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    I'm no fan of handing everything over to the free-market myself, and I'd agree that the business lobby has too much power in general.

    But I still can't see the type of link you're suggesting in the case of IPAs.

    I've no doubt big business lobbies for visa waiver schemes and increasing the number of visas in general.

    Possibly they also lobby to allow IPAs access the labor market earlier, once they're already here.

    But I think given the choice, big business would far sooner deal with visa immigrants than IPAs for a number of reasons...

    IPAs will generally have access to some state protections, they won't be as reliant on employers as visa, or visa waiver immigrants are.

    IPAs will often put down roots in their settled country. Meaning they will have a tax cost in old age, welfare cost in a recession etc. It's far better from a business perspective deal with visa and visa waiver applicants, who they might hope would simply move on when no longer working here.

    Visa workers don't cause the same political opposition. You mention how big business likes to keep political turmoil but I'm not so sure. If it does, i'd certainly expect it to be the type of political turmoil that doesn't cost them money. Huge amounts have been spent in other countries unsuccessfully trying to keep IPAs out, and business in general will be heavily impacted by the tax cost of this.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16 McDougal2




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,384 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Varadkar said that while 38 – 40% of those claiming asylum were “genuine” the majority were not genuine claims. 

    I have known for 15-20 years that the majority of AS are making bogus claims.

    I contend that it's higher than 60-62% bogus.


    Can we turn around the 62% in 24 hours?

    I read that Switzerland is trying to process some claims over night.


    If we processed at least some claims overnight, and had a B737 on standby 24/7 in Dublin, we could deport 150 per day.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,149 ✭✭✭mistersifter


    Something of a positive step taken in relation to visa requirements, which I previously highlighted as a symbol of the government's failure and disregard for immigration control.

    McEntee has added three countries to our list of countries whose citizens need visas to travel to Ireland.

    Vanuatu, Dominica, and Honduras. Mad that these citizens could previously come here without visas. But why not the main offenders like South Africa - a massive facilitator of illegal immigration to Ireland? Why not Swaziland, El Salvador, and many others? Seemingly all that is required is a decision from the minister.

    https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/e8f77-minister-mcentee-announces-new-visa-requirements/



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    You're mixing up travel visas and work visas. South Africans do need a work visa or student visa to work or study in Ireland.

    People coming here on a simple travel visa for holidays is a completely different subject to anything immigration related.



  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Scipri0


    Skilled workers should be welcomed, but the ones getting shipped to Europe after being picked up in a dinghy off the coast of North Africa and shipped to Europe are not doctors and engineers. What they can be used for is the less paid type of mundane work, like in slaughterhouses and picking strawberries. The business don't want to pay more so don't attract workers, so they lobby the government to take in more people who'll work this jobs just to get a chance to live in Europe.

    The people in charge of these business or leaders in government also don't have to deal with cohesion or mixing with the people, they take it. Don't have to compete for housing, schools, GPs. They're well insulated from any harm that they create for others because some of these people coming in are incompatible with western way of life. They'll happily sell us all out once they can set up themselves, family and friends. It's not really about the government being tolerant of the people they take it. It's that they want to exploit them for their economic value.





  • Registered Users Posts: 3,149 ✭✭✭mistersifter


    I'm not mixing up anything. You're the one who is confusing work permits with visas. What you said is wrong i.e. that holiday visas (or short stay "visit" visas as they are known) are not "immigration related". All types of visas are immigration related.

    Certain non European countries are required to to hold visas to travel to Ireland regardless of the reason for travel, even if it is just for tourism. These countries are high-risk countries including for example Nigeria, Georgia, Bolivia (Since september), Albania, Algeria, China, India, etc. Such requirements are in place as there is a high risk that people from those countries will abuse our system. The airlines cannot even board people with these passports if there is no visa on the passport.

    On the other hand, low-risk non EU countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, etc, can travel here without a short stay visa - they can buy a plane ticket and arrive at our border as tourists. (Of course even these countries will still need work permits if they come for a long stay - that's different).

    Some countries are deemed such high-risk that they are even required to hold visas to simply transit through our airports. Ukraine used to be on this list. Several African countries are currently on this list, as is Bolivia.

    South Africans SHOULD be required to have a visa to travel here as tourists. Because many of them travel to Ireland posing as tourists and then they remain here. They actually need visas to travel to the UK as tourists, so it's crazy that we are not aligned with the UK in this regard. They do not currently need a visa to come to Ireland as a tourist. This is a massive gaping hole in our system. Why? Because corrupt South African passport office will sell real South African passports to anyone, thus allowing them to pose as tourists in Ireland and then never leave.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,388 ✭✭✭✭Goldengirl


    By that token you could say that Soc Dems won't be gaining support either...but they are.

    I think SF support is going back up after a drop a few weeks ago .

    Their new candidates are pushing housing and services issues on the doorstep.

    Not sure if that alone will make the difference but " it's time for a change " sure resonates .



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,866 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Tourists are not immigrants. All visas are not immigration visas.

    As for your commentary about 'high risk' countries that will 'abuse our system ' I'm sure you can back up your assertions with actual facts?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,568 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    If the minister didn't allow IPAs work, they'd be criticized for supporting them. I suspect that move was as much to do with the backlash around what's spent on 'looking after' IPAs and them 'not contributing' than anything else.

    After that, suppose you were put in charge of immigration policy, how do you propose to actually stop people coming to a country which on paper is the second wealthiest in the world? Other countries have tried hard borders and deterrents. These measures have been hugely expensive and look to have generally failed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,568 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    For a start we don't get anywhere near 150 applicants a day.

    This Swiss trial, of certain safe countries, is quite different from what you're making it out to be. From the article you shared...

    Despite the fast-track procedure, many of those affected will probably not be expelled after 24 hours, according to the SEM. Identification of migrants takes time and appeals remain possible.  



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,568 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    I agree, we're basically a tax haven and have nowhere near the living standards our paper wealth suggests.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0305/1436067-christian-aid/



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    We have around 9-10m visitors from overseas a year. Only a very tiny percentage of these would be involved in anything dodgy related to immigration. The reason the government wants to have flexible travel visa arrangements is to boost visitor numbers - things like visas are a barrier to tourism (it was a big coup for them for example to abolish visas for Chinese people who wish to visit Ireland).



  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Scipri0


    I suspect it was their intention all along and that they were hiding behind goodwill and pretending to care for these people and will have no problems when they'll slave away in their friends businesses working away for a pittance. I'm not saying to stop everyone, We should do a system like Australia. Take in skilled workers that are in short supply here, and anyone that gets rid of documentation or is not genuine should be sent back to the spot they arrived from. I'd also fine airlines because surely they must be checking these people's IDs and details kept? They've failed because at the end of the day, neither side wants to really stop it. It could be massively improved



  • Registered Users Posts: 121 ✭✭LongfordMB


    Surely at some point we are going to get pressure from the british on this third world asylum farce. The common travel area suggests we should have a common external migration policy with the UK. It's actually crazy that we do our own thing at all. Would be great if it was british threats to close the borders and enforce passport control that finally ended the madness.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,149 ✭✭✭mistersifter


    You are wrong again.

    IMMIGRATION legislation covers ALL visas and all people presenting at our borders including short-stay visas, long-stay visas, work permits, and even citizens that are not required to hold visas. Everyone is subject to our IMMIGRATION acts regardless of their reasons for coming to our border (even Irish people).

    You are being pedantic (and failing at that) because you are trying to distract from the actual point I was making, which is that much abuse of our immigration systems could be prevented by tighter visa requirements.

    And yes, I can back it up. Here's an example:

    We used to refuse about 200 Bolivians per year at our airports. This is because Bolivians did not require visas to travel to Ireland and they would just rock up, posing as tourists and hoping to live here illegally. When refused entry to the State, some of these Bolivians would claim asylum as it was the only way they could avoid deportation. Since we introduced a visa requirement for Bolivians, we have had very few (if any) such issues. So we have pretty much eliminated international protection applications from a safe country by imposing a visa requirement.

    Three more countries have just been added to that list - Vanuatu, Dominica, Honduras for the reasons I am outlining here, so even McEntee seems to recognise what I'm saying ;) That's more evidence.

    To further enhance our controls, South Africans and other nationals should be required to hold visas to come here, even on short stays (They are even required to hold visas to go to the UK and they are in the commonwealth, yet we don't put that same demand on them!).



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,149 ✭✭✭mistersifter


    Rubbish.

    There is next to no tourism coming from places that I mentioned like Swaziland, Botswana, etc. This is due to the distance and the cost of living here. There are, however, asylum seekers coming from these places. So there is no economic advantage to not having visa requirements for such nationalities.

    Our tourism comes from the UK, EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. These countries do not require tourist visas and there is no need for them to introduce such a requirement as they do not abuse our systems. In fact, we possibly should be making it even easier for these people to travel here because they genuinely boost our tourism industry unlike, say, El Salvadorans.

    The lack of visa requirement is what allows a lot of asylum chancers to board planes in the first place.


    edit: further correction of more misleading info provided by Strazdas - Chinese nationals DO require visitor visas for Ireland. They cannot show up at our border without a visa. We will allow them to enter if they have a UK visa though, as relevant checks will have been carried out over there. Same goes for Indians. This is called the short stay visa waiver programme.

    Post edited by mistersifter on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,941 ✭✭✭.Donegal.


    Since 2023, the number of those who plan to stay in Ireland on a permanent basis has increased from 41 per cent to 53 per cent. The share of those planning to return home decreased from 25.5 per cent to 19 per cent.

    Another 1 per cent planned to move to another country, and 27 per cent could not answer the question.




  • Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    The Brits threatening deportation to Rwanda has helped to up our numbers of asylum seekers. They are happy enough for people to leave UK and goto Ireland instead.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The travel visa thing is a total red herring - most asylum seekers enter Ireland via the EU (or from GB or NI) where no visas are required for entry,



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,149 ✭✭✭mistersifter


    It's not a red herring. You are using this phrase as you have no proper counterargument. I believe you do this quite a bit.

    All of the points you make in this post are incorrect. Here's why:

    1. It does not matter if they fly to Ireland via other European airports. Usual visa rules will still apply to them as they are non-EU citizens using non-EU passports.
    2. About one third of all International Protection Applications are made at the airports and many more applicants arrive through the airports but don't declare their application at the airports i.e. they pose as tourists and then later apply directly at the IPO, and they can do this as they don't need tourist visas!
    3. If someone is required to hold a visa, then they are required to hold a visa even if they come through Northern Ireland. Them coming via Belfast does not change their requirements for entry to the state. Coming through Northern Ireland just makes it easier to escape inspection. In fact, it is against immigration legisliation to abuse the common travel area in this manner.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,324 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Yeah the UK with it's massive amount of immigration and yet they've a creaking/busting health service same as us. A housing crisis, same as us.

    Its almost like any of the supposed benefits of massive immigration is pony.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,568 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    But Australia's hard border policies have largely failed too.

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-uks-stop-the-boats-policy-shows-a-failure-to-learn-from-australias-mistakes/

    It seems they've had some success with turning boats around at sea but the deterrent aspect has failed. Offshoring for new arrivals was abandoned quite quickly.

    And we don't have the option to push back boats. We've an open border up North.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,005 ✭✭✭✭BPKS


    This is unusual. Relates to an Afghan who wasn't long in Ireland and took off for Belfast after the woman was murdered.

    Why is the trial in a different jurisdiction?





  • Registered Users Posts: 25,005 ✭✭✭✭zell12


    Minister admits

    “ We’re happy to do what we need to do to support [Ukrainian refugees]. But we can’t be more attractive than other European countries. They were coming to Europe, and then we were the second destination. So therefore, it was obviously more attractive to come here.”




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    The Soc Dems have other policies that will resonate with some voters, but true that SF & the Soc Dems certainly are not advocating a tighter immigration approach than the current govt.

    Maybe SF are pushing housing, but I am still yet to see a costed plan on how they would deliver more homes.

    I actually think they would deliver less new homes because they are anti big business and its investment fund capital that is wholesale driving residential construction in Dublin at the moment.

    Remember also that the slow down in the commercial construction sector will move staff into residential, which is likley a factor in Leo upping the new homes targets from 35k to 50k per year from next year, I believe.

    Latest Ipsos poll from Feb 24 has SF at their lowest support level in 3 years (28%)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭enricoh


    Must be a sniff of an election in the air! No votes anymore handing out free everything to everyone minister?

    Government spending up 22% on previous 12 months! Hopefully banty mcenaney n his ilk can become billionaires outta this #totallysustainable!





This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement