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

Paying one group of people to give out tents and another group of people to take down said tents

Hey it's an increase in GDP.

Makes about as much sense as paying one group of people to dig holes and another group fill them in

the housing figures will be up too… 80 new homes delivered (in Crooksling for illegal economic migrants and the odd successful asylum applicant. )

I expect the supposition was to demean both women and people whom the poster considers liberal thinking.

As for the waffle in your post.

Are you suggesting that people who do liberal arts stop developing mentally at 15?

Both your post and the other post are classic examples of othering.

You both seem to be trying weaken the other side in your own opinion by assigning negative traits that are based on nothing more than fantasy thought on your part.

All liberal people do this ..

All liberal people think this...

Which easily then leads to you thinking

All the faults I see are caused by them.

Even when it was the Nazis I always knew it was the liberals.

Ah stop. The hole is nearly all the way to China already.

So children from all over the country who complete their leaving cert to a sufficient level to attain acceptance to third level education are not all the same.

Because if they choose what you consider arts degree at 18 that means they stopped developing at the same rate as their peers at 15 who completed their leaving cert but didn't choose the same pathway?

👆🏿🤣🤣🤣🤣🫵🏿

In my opinion anyone who truly held such a belief would have to be an absolute idiot!

The one in clonmel is beside a halting site where the residents warned not to place asylum seekers as there would be trouble so that may not be a good idea.

I thought travellers were all for inclusivity and equality? I thought that would be an ideal location?

I'd say you might be surprised. In the long term such a policy would almost certainly discourage bogus asylum seekers from coming here and it would be preferable to paying 627 million a year to hotel owners to house them.

I'm sorry but they are aspirational and they are not within our own power — this does not make them impossible, nor does the acknowldgement of the difficulty of achieving them equate to "capitulation". You talk as if I don't advocate international migration agreements, when you need only go back through my posts to see that I do. But they require things that we cannot fully control — the lasting co-operation and conformity by the counterparty country. Deals won't always work out as things change — wars and disasters occur, economies crumble, the other country reneges on its bargains, our neighbouring countries don't co-operate with us — and all manner of other things.

This is part of the reason there will never be a definitive solution. There will only ever be measures of varying effectiveness — and there is going to be lots of failure. That doesn't mean we capitulate — it means we stay realistic in order to refine and reform approaches when we can, in ways that can be done. Call it deluded rationale if you want. If you wish to convince yourself that there is a realistic future that doesn't involve some degree of acceptance that there will be surges in illegal migration and refugee numbers from time to time — then I can assure you that you will spend the rest of your life waiting for it.

the government aren't outbidding tax payers to house free loaders over all.

some free loaders may be housed but it's cheaper in the long run.

whatever the government does will be interference in the market, so in the absence of any plan to build social housing for which some would whinge and whine about it if they did start doing it, i'm afraid this is the only way.

buying up housing stock, and anyway someone else outbidding someone is the same result anyway.

prices will only calm with a flood of housing.

You do know this has been going on for years? Why are posters acting like this is a new policy. Councils have been outbidding private buyers for years. Where was the outrage then…..

Because then it was for social housing. Now it’s for IPA’s which makes social housing numbers available smaller. I think these should be reserved for people on housing list etc and not IPA’s.

I’ll know you come back and ask me why not IPA’s do they not dersrve to be housed et ? They do, but not in houses that we need for people on housing lists.

But are they legitimately supposed to be putting up these tents anywhere round Dublin? If not this is Joseph Heller/Kurt Vonnegut-level insanity…

What do you mean by that ?