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

Seeing the hideous barriers now placed along the canal one wonders what’s this about? The Taoiseach said very definitely today - tents are not allowed on our streets. Surely that should be enough - plant a tent and get moved on. Sealing off a wonderful amenity that is just coming into its own as the sun arrives is overkill. Is it that someone feels they have to be seen to be doing something? Surely it’s better to enforce the law, tent by tent and allow the locals to resume their enjoyment of their locality. Why add to the resentment ?

This is what needs to happen:

1. All new arrivals must go to one large detention centre somewhere like the Curragh. In tents. They must go there, they must not be given a choice. Refusal to go there means automatic rejection for application.
2. Detain them there using the Army - anyone being processed should not be allowed to leave this centre unless on emergency medical grounds.
3. Speed up the processing by a factor of 20 at least with a COVID style effort of training and hiring hundreds of assessors. This will be far cheaper for the country than the alternative.
4. Criteria raised for acceptance as refugee - applicant must show proof they face immediate harm if they return where they came from. Simply being from Nigeria for example, would not be enough. Plenty of safe areas in Nigeria.
5. Anyone arriving without documentation gets immediate refusal by default unless they can prove where they are from some other way. The onus should be on them to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Only 1 appeal allowed.
7. If rejected, immediate deportation on chartered flights. Straight from the detention centre to the airport.
8. Strong crackdown on the human trafficking aspect - even bringing these men from Belfast down south in a taxi should be criminal offense - any cross border trips they would have to register with Irish government or face prosecution.

Do all this while putting funding and legal restrictions on the NGO's to reduce legal appeals to bare minimum. Any NGO aiding an applicant to get around these rules, providing tents in unauthorized areas or to transport them around will also be brought to court and / or de-funded.

Aviva would be grand for them. Give them a Gore-tex sleeping bag, they can wash themselves from a hand basin in the jacks. On-site catering already in place. Lock all the entrances. Job done.

I shared some research in the other thread showing the factors by which IPAs chose a European country.

First up is friends and family, next comes GDP and employment rates.

They found supports played a role but not nearly so much as the other factors.

I'm not so sure the Danish punishment camps and imprisoning children would go down well with the Irish public, given our history of institutional abuse.

I'd think we're far more economically dependent on our position within the EU to not to be seen to play our part, or to push people elsewhere.

Besides if every country in the EU goes that route it's quite likely the effect will be nullified. Deterrence hasn't worked elsewhere.

In order for the sums to add up we'd need to reject about 90% of all applicants each year, and remove all of those rejected applicants out of direct provision somehow to make way for the following years cohort.

Pity then that we only reject about 10% of applicants and deport hardly anyone at all.

If what you say is true, then surely you'd agree we need to crack down hard as soon as possible. Otherwise the pull factor will grow exponentially and we don't want that.

Already we see Irish couples putting off having children later, if at all, so many factors working against them. These arrivals are mostly younger, either already have families to bring over or will happily have more here. Net result is not hard to see.

What deterrent?

really? Was the argument here that we reject 60% of asylum seekers? Now you say it's 10%??

Even if 90% were deported instantly upon arrival, would we have enough accomodation for the 10% that qualify for asylum?

That should be the first calculation the govt should make. If we cant clear that hurdle, we cant clear any of them.

That would be roughly 2,000 people to house this year, on top of the current homeless population.

You're suggesting we break the law. You might be happy living in a country where the government ignores the law and does whatever it likes, most people don't.

Too much like prison hulks for peoples liking.

There was an increase in processing staff numbers this year, so we can process up to 14k applications a year. However, we are expecting in excess of 20k applicants in 2024; so there is that.

Also, processing requires temporary accommodation, unless we want tents on the streets. I dont think we have temp accom for 20k applicants.

Then we need long term housing for the succesful applicants. I am not sure we have the housing for them either.

We also then need temporary housing for the rejected applicants, to host them before they leave the country. Do we have that?