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

Utterly wrong in so many way but ultimately delusional.

Thanks @Geuze . Agreed. A move away from physical passports is essential and the increased use of biometrics and exit checks would have huge advantages.

@MegamanBoo take note. This is what a clear post looks like. Can you do something similar to outline your own opposing stance? It would be interesting since you're arguing the opposite i.e. for actually escorting asylum seekers here for processing. So how you think we should coordinate this?

Ok I’m finished here, I asked a simple question, others here can engage. I suspect you’re having a good laugh at the replies, well done 😀 ,you got us.

I just can't even give you the benefit of the doubt at this point.

It's blatantly clear you're not conversing in good faith when you say I want to 'escort people here'

As I said before there's good reason the door is being shut politically to the anti-immigration brigade.

Can we deport all the progressive liberal do-gooders first ….you know the type, would sell out their granny for a like and a pat on the back by likeminded folk

I'm being as serious as I possibly can when interacting with someone who can't explain their own basic point without completely contradicting themselves.

So after all you've said before, now you don't believe that airline and immigration rules should change? So:

• Why did you say in post #27052 that "in essence [airlines facilitating undocumented passengers] is what should happen" ?
• Also, why then did you call for the removal of pre-authorised visa requirements for non-EU countries to facilitate travel of asylum seekers?
• And if airlines should still look for passports as you say in this latest post, how would asylum seekers actually get here according to your plan? This seems to be a major contradiction in your plan. How could they get through airport security without passports if airport security is not going to change?

Let's make this easier and pretend there's an asylum seeker called Mohammed. What happens when Mohammed shows up at one of the thousands of ferry ports in Greece saying he wants asylum in Ireland? Who processes his application? What does he do while waiting on a decision?

Just flesh out the plan a bit for us can you? Or alternatively you could just admit you haven't a clue where you're going with any of this.

Someone is asking for a number that ought to be allowed in.

It would seem the answer is 45 million!

That would be seem to be the train of thought of these welcome all types.

I say this because there's a guy called Ronin mccreevey writing behind a paywall article in the Irish times that South Korea with a similar land area has 10 times our population.

Let's ignore the fact that virtually all these people are ethnic Koreans.

So it's simple.

Concrete over all the greenery and import half the world.

Change Ireland's nick name from emerald Isle to gray Isle.

Simple really.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2024/08/02/ireland-is-not-full-south-koreas-population-is-10-times-higher-on-a-similar-land-area/

Coupled with the fact, our countryside is beautiful, do we really want to turn the country into a concrete jungle?

For those of you who like numbers and bubbles.

Again you're presenting things you either think I said, or am pretending I said.

I'm starting to suspect too that perhaps you don't know how border controls and the asylum process work.

I'm not sure what you mean about a ferry port in Greece, as Greece is in the EU?

If an asylum seeker showed up at a ferry port in North Africa, they should be allowed buy a ticket and board if they meet that ferry's security recruitments.

Once they safely cross the sea they can claim asylum, and enter the EU, if they meet the existing criteria for doing so.

To avoid abuse further conditions and restrictions could be put on those seeking asylum joining the workforce, especially those who are then deemed not to meet the criteria.

As for cost versus consequence...

There are short term costs when people come here to seek asylum.

There would be consequences, including economic, if we tried to implement any of the policies suggested on this thread thus far. Some of these have a degree of risk, others are more obviously negative.

In scenarios like this, policies are typically changed on the basis of cost Vs consequence as supported by evidence. As much as you guys might believe otherwise, for whatever reason, there's no real evidence of any long term risk or broader consequence from people coming to seek asylum.

You guys have a lot of beliefs you'll clearly go to great lengths to defend but looked at rationally there's very little concrete there to support them.

My personal opinion is that these beliefs come from some or all of these factors...

Online harm from social media and extremist websites.

Fear from uncertain and difficult times projected towards IPAs.

And I'm afraid in some cases it's just good old fashioned racism and prejudice.

Get them to point it out on a map. Thats if you can communicate it to them

Or, you could engage with some of the numbers shared. It's not as bad as you think it is.

The problem is with processing. The amount of people that are allowed is pretty reasonable. But sure, refugees…