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

So you have no official figures on the costs, just fancied a rant about it then?

Oh so it will be above €200million in the makey-uppy world then? Maybe the €2million per day being paid to accommodate illegals could go towards paying for your mythical costs relating to attacks etc?

Makey-uppy and mythical....pot and kettle?

Explain how you would implement your limit Francie. Not just a vague concept of having one, but the logistics of it and how you would apply it

If that wasn't your point, that was what you responded to.

I never said only a tiny, tiny amount have concerns about our immigration policies. I have concerns myself. I don't think there's anything but a tiny minority support the violence, or the spewing hatred about 'bogus' asylum seekers etc.

From what I've seen of this poll, and I'm looking at the Newstalk reporting, it doesn't suggest what you think it does at all. That's pure speculation.

As for affluent areas, I think it's quite reasonable that affluent areas take asylum seekers too, but if going the private market route I would think cost is a then factor.

But you answered this question to tell me that this was the coherent demand of the protestors, is this all their demanding? So all these sites will still take IPA accommodation once affluent areas do too?

That has zero relevance to a simplistic limit. You either have a limit or you don't.

You can still claim asylum even if you are from a safe country of origin. Provided you can submit serious grounds that the country is not safe in terms of your circumstances. This is well known. Harder to prove perhaps but the processing times are the real problem.

apologies @Cluedo Monopoly and @MegamanBoo , I stand corrected. In that case I still say the safe countries list should be increased and faster processing times of those from a safe country

RDS grounds in D4 would perfect location for refugee site.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "limit".

Rather than confusing the issue, just explain what you want. Pretending it is something else will not help your argument. You can of course be pedantic if you want and argue that "zero" is technically a limit. The mirror of your "argument" would be someone arguing that "there should be a maximum allowance of people allowed to come in from country X" ….. and when asked what that maximum should be they admit "a million billion people".

As someone else explained above, you cannot realistically aim for a zero limit anyway under international obligations. So people will still have to be processed.

Every "refugees welcome" flag carrying advocate should be housing the migrants on their own street or in their own house.

It's well and dandy, trendy even (to some) to be offering up everyone else's taxes to pay for migrants when poll after poll shows the public don't wan't more mass-migration.

When the streets of the 'refugees welcome' brigade are full, when their houses are full - send in more migrants. Maybe when Foxrock and Ballsbridge have 800,000 migrants between them will the penny finally drop that we cannot sustain the numbers.

Some opinions aren't really thought through. Particularly this one of calling for the housing of loads more immigrants in expensive areas. If you get what you wish for, at what point do you think the penny will drop when some chancer is getting off a boat and having a 7 figure apartment bought for his use in an area that the majority of people would never be able to afford.

A disused paint factory in Coolock versus a penthouse 1-bed in Foxrock, sign me up for the latter please if I'm looking for somewhere to claim asylum. The lads over in France will only let me in a tent and then to accommodation in a poor neighbourhood if I'm lucky. Foxrock baby.

Denmark doesn't look too content to me, they seem to be trying for some kind of last minute sign up to the migration pact.

https://cphpost.dk/2024-05-21/news/politics/denmark-leads-15-member-states-in-call-to-outsource-eu-migrant-policy/

You see, you're not really thinking things through. You are being driven by bitterness and begrudgery. On one hand, you appear to be against money and resources being spent on asylum seekers, and on the other hand you'd prefer the State to provide accommodation to them at 7-figues a pop. It's a bit schizophrenic.