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

You can see it in the US a bit , Im guessing via analysis Im following that Black Males or Hispanic males in particular are going to switch and vote Republican in noticeable numbers because they are against open borders as it affects them directly. The scenes in NI were sending a signal that working class people are having enough of it too.

it will be interesting to see if it affects politics here next year but it maybe too early , at the end of the day houses and taxes dont grow on trees, a lot of deluded politicians and luvvies out there

does it matter? every society has under achievers , working class under achievers dont want competition for housing and welfare etc. Lefty activists are under achievers too which is why they take out their frustrations by displaying toxic empathy and narcissism and are a danger for wider society

I'd agree with a lot of that. There's certainly a mindless football hooligan element to it.

I think what's a bit more dangerous here is that some of the hardcore seem to actually believe they're defending their communities and their culture from a supposed invasion. It seems some genuinely believe they're part of a heroic struggle and are justified to cross the line into killing their 'enemies'.

Really there's no great difference from the jihadists they think they're protecting us from. Just some poor marginalized kids brainwashed on hateful ideology. I think it's becoming clear we need to get tougher on the people pushing this poison, starting with the keyboard warriors and social media companies.

Anything evidence to show these people in NI are 'fake' refugees?

If not it's just more unsubstantiated hatemongering.

I agree we can't keep relying on FDI and of course a global recession will come at some point. I wouldn't agree with your assertion that we are not a wealthy country.

Putting IPAs in private accommodation is hugely expensive but as far as I can see it's just one example where this government gets terrible value for money. The children's hospital is another obvious examples but really there's a list as long as my arm where the public purse is paying way above what it should/could be for services or infrastructure.

In terms of reducing costs I see two options:

Option A) move to state owned accommodation which has been costed at about half our current outlay (a current outlay which will likely only raise from the costs associated with violent protests, arson attacks, worker intimidation etc.)

Option B) try to stop people coming here. This might seem attractive but what is the cost and what are the consequences? People on here talk a lot about the Danish model but that's not so straightforward. For a start it's certainly worth noting that Denmark appears to be changing it's approach and trying to move towards some version of the immigration pact. After that the Danish approach relies heavily on using their police force to monitor arriving asylum seekers, I believe there are regular checks and daily signing on. We don't have these police numbers and are struggling to recruit.

If somebody fails to meet the criteria for refugee status in Denmark they are then moved to a deportation center. These are designed to be punitive centers in the hope of forcing people to leave. They have fallen foul of EU legislation, though to date there's been no fine as was the case with Hungary.

Denmark manages to deport some of the people from these centers but for the most part it appears people simply disappear and try their luck elsewhere in Europe. Therein lies the biggest issue. The more people take the Danish approach, the harder it is to implement as alternative destinations disappear. I think there's a very real risk Europe and Ireland wide we'd end up with something akin to Australia's approach of warehousing people in detention centers, where they don't leave because they have no alternative. It's one thing to be locking people up for a few months, another thing entirely to be holding people long term.

I've posted links documenting all this stuff several times in the thread, if anything else is required please let me know.

There's that oft repeated myth again.

There's no obligation whatsoever to seek asylum in the nearest 'safe' country. Research shows people chose countries further away because of friends/family connections, political stability and job opportunities. The same factors I reckon most of us would chose in that scenario.

There's been plenty of examples where larger numbers of people have moved further away to avoid threat. The example that comes to mind to me is the number of Iranians who moved to the US and especially the west coast after the Ayatollah fell. I don't think anyone questions that they were genuine, yet they moved to the other side of the world.

I've no way of knowing who or how many are 'genuine' or 'fake', nor do you, so why talk about all these people as 'fake'?

Do you not think there's any genuine refugees, or are you just ok with belittling people who've come through those kind of horrors and are trying to start a new life?

And your basis for this claim is Jersey? Population 100k?

How many were seeking asylum there and what did it reduce to when they cut benefits?

I don't know has any European country fully cut benefits. UK I believe went as low as £1.25 per day but obviously that didn't 'stop the boats'