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

The University of Amsterdam absolutely attempted to disavow its involvement in the report, that is arguably indicative of the deteriorating social dialogue that led the Dutch Government to terminate economic reports on the relationship between immigration and economy in the first instance. Regardless, the findings of the report are consistent with a report published by the Danish Government and while you have commented on the report quite considerably, those comments have extended to the circumstances around the publication of the report only - have you any comments on the content of the report (appreciating that you obviously neglected to read the first few pages of the report until prompted to…) criticism of the methodology etc.?

I disagree, it is patently obvious that you failed to engage with the report at all before dismissing it. What were your doubtlessly illuminating thoughts on Danish Government report that reflects the findings of the Dutch report?

I'd expect they will charge the terrorist activity, where it meets the legislation.

I'd expect in time they'll have to modernise the legislation more in line with the US definition of domestic terrorism.

the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

I don't know how you get from that, or our existing legislation to claiming that 'anyone who criticises the position on immigration can be charged'

Care to explain?

Is it a Dutch Government report I shared?

Hmm. I agree. I also wonder how many political parties will keep their election promises about stricter control. I suspect, none of them will.

I’d say I know just about as much as you do.

Regardless of what you provide it will never be enough, if people don't want to face the reality and seriousness of the situation they simply won't and will continue to argue that black is white. Maybe they will come to their senses when the consequences effect them personally like we saw earlier in the week with Hazel Chu and Ivana Bacik suddenly changing their "Refugees welcome" tune when the tents moved to Ballsbridge.

And it will effect them personally eventually, nobody will avoid the consequences. It's an unsustainable cluster **** that us and our children will be paying the cost of for a very long time.

I read this long tweet about our international asylum obligations today. I found it helpful.

I don't agree with him about leaving the EU, but his explanation is honest and detailed.

Now, clearly, and by his own admission, this guy is not in the centre of the political spectrum.

Is everything he states about our intl obligations true?

If so, it seems like it will be difficult for us to control our borders.

At this point there are three different reports - one from Denmark, one from Sweden, one from the Netherlands - demonstrating that the net expense to the exchequer of non-Western immigrants and asylum seekers is between 1% and 1.7% of GDP…

It said working paper on the title page, it was an early version. I don't have access to the full article, but I get the gist.

The article below pretty much sums up my reaction.

Essentially IPAs can show as contributing less to the economy because they're more likely to end up in low paid jobs or be restricted from working.

That only shows us that these type of economic measurements don't capture the true value of much low paid work. A lot of childcare workers, hospital cleaners etc in Ireland would be measured as a 'drain' on the economy because they might be relying on income supports or HEPA. Are the net contributors though? Of course, see how well the country functions without them.

It's quite a nasty and cheap angle to take really when you think about it.

https://www.saisjournal.eu/article/81-Refugees-Are-Not-Fiscal-Burdens.cfm

Is that factoring the unemployment rate as well?

I agree but the fundamental metrics that require revision are the threshold for protection, the time-limits for protection, and the processing time for applications. Access to welfare and other reception conditions represents a certain degree of attraction to migrants but the primary measurement of attractiveness is the potential to remain in the State. At the moment, Ireland has a low threshold for protection, generous time-limits for protection, lengthy processing times, and low deportation rates, for this reason it is an ideal destination for migrants.

Bit of a segway but not really.

I've lived in Ballsbridge 3 years now. Not once have I seen a proper supercar. Seems to be loads of Porsche 911s but that's the height of it.

Today I passed 2 lambos on Baggott St. Wtf Unbeknownst to me as I was down West for the day, there was a car fair in Herbert Park. Lambos, McClaren F1s, Merc SLs.

If anything from the misery of living in the tent. I hope the folks enjoyed it! I'm sure the word of the Dublin wealth will spread.

That article you posted a link to is wishy washy. Zero figures or numbers on what the actual cost is. And he does the usual trick of conflating legal, working migrants (nurses, doctors etc.) with IPAs and Asylum Seekers. In the first paragraph of the 'Real Benefits of Migration' section he mentions doctors at least six times. It has been repeated ad nauseam that nobody has any issues with qualified workers coming here on visas. They aren't the ones sleeping in tents on the Grand Canal that require free acommodation or filling up hotels around the country.

The entire artice can be perhaps summed up by the final line: "I am not saying that Sweden or the EU should admit refugees because it benefits Sweden and the EU. Sweden and the EU should admit refugees to defend and uphold human rights."