Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1995996998100010011017

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Well I'm slightly confused here as, if you were at all familiar with my posts, the difficulty of formulating effective deterrents to illegal migration more or less underpins almost every post I have ever written on this topic. It's the very reason why I tend to criticise those who make out that it all comes down to Lefties and that so-called common sense solutions could solve the problems.

    The problem is that the Right — when all is said and done, and as we have already seen with Right leaning governments time and time again — is no more willing to implement the "proper deterrents" than the Left is. They'll implement measures here and there of varying effect, but the people keep coming — and generally the ebbs and flows of migration have more to do with global events than any policy.

    So it brings me back to my point that there is a distinct lack of true sincere honesty among many who talk about migration, because when talking about how hard we need to be on it, they never actually really set out their own limit on how far they are willing to go to minimise it. And if they don't do that, then you can never actually tell if they really have any vision for migration at all, when they have no idea how far they would be willing to go.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Id go so far as to say your totally confused but that's another conversation.

    A decent start wpupd be as follows. If you arrive on our shores illegally then you will get treated with hostility.

    You will be detained as a criminal and processed as one until proven otherwise.

    If you're not proven to be a criminal then you will be deported. Onus on the arivee to prove outside reasonable doubt their true identity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    OK so you say that if people arrive on our shores illegally — they will be treated with "hostility". So what does that mean, in practice?

    All the stuff about detaining them as criminals, is all well and good. But you end up detaining them in dedicated centres which, grim as they may be, for many they represent at the very least a bed, food and shelter — and the possibility of eventually being allowed out into society.

    In any of your given solutions there, migrants still have a chance to get their foot in the door. Where there is the chance, people are going to take it because they will deem that they have very little to lose by trying.

    If people — particularly Right leaning politicians and commentators, and indeed a lot of posters here — were actually more honest about this, it would open the path to a better discussion on immigration and actual feasible consensus between Left and Right. Instead — it's just the age old finger-point at Lefties and the constant trotting out of simplistic solutions that dishonestly evade practical examination or admission of flaw — because that would just make them the same as Lefties, and that won't do as Lefties are stupider and less common sense-er.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    I've no idea what you're trying to say.

    Criminality will always exist but it would be a lot worse with no deterrents eg laws/punishment/sentencing etc.

    We are currently rolling out a red carpet to the 3rd world. We need to first and foremost treat this criminality the way we treat all other criminality.

    We can all gather round in a circle and hold hands after that and try imagine a better world where people don't want toenter countries illegally.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    Well, it's pretty obvious from your last paragraph that you have no idea what I'm trying to say as it has absolutely no relevance to any opinion I have expressed whatsoever.

    But anyway — what's that you say about criminality? It sounds like when it comes to crime you are able to talk about how it is inevitable and that all we can do is try to have measures that deter it? And presumably you also feel that the tolerance of a certain level of crime is probably a necessary component of upholding other things we want from our society — namely things like freedom, privacy, rights of individuals versus the State etc. Yes?

    So why is it so difficult for you or other people on this thread to apply the same nuances to illegal migration or asylum seeking and to actually be honest as to the fact that — just like the Left — you have no answer to the inevitability of illegal migration and to be honest about what downsides and sacrifices your proposed measures would require, just as our current migration policies have downsides.

    But as I have found on this thread, the name of the game is to say: Left stupid, Roderic stupid, we should do this, problem solved, no downsides only upsides.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    I'm pro law and order. It makes our society functional.

    Currently there is no law and order being applied to the criminality of AS/people smuggling.

    It's quite literally getting a free pass on the grounds of humanity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,956 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    There is nothing criminal about seeking asylum.

    As for people smuggling, I'm not sure that's solely related to IPAs, but I believe people have been convicted of same in this country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    The criminality is in the arrival, you've arrived illegally with no documents.

    If I smuggled a truck load of cocaine into the country and was caught, would the cocaine get sent out to the market amyway?

    Or would it be detained along with me?

    Spot the difference.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,956 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    It would be very different in the case of arriving with, or having cocaine, as that is a crime.

    Being in the country to seek asylum is not a crime, regardless of how the person entered.

    For some reason, which I can't fathom, it seems to be both legal and illegal to enter the country to seek asylum without documents.

    It's clearly not working as a 'deterrent', and I guess was only introduced to play to the anti-immigration crowd.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,905 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    I'm certainly not right leaning but the lefties are going too far. We should not be taking anybody in right now because our health system cannot cope with the population we alread have. When we take people in we should be able to supply them with all the services required to make their life comfortable.

    I'm of the opinion that right now we are overpopulated because of the state of your health service. Money needs to be spent on it. That money can be got by streamlining the ridiculous amount of red tape and the amount of people employed in this red tape fiasco. It's a pretty simple solution and we will then be in position to provide all thats needed to take in asylum seekers.

    As for those breaking laws, they need to be turned away at the ports. We shouldn't be taking in life long criminals from anywhere, even other EU countries. There should be some law dealing with that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,956 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    It looks to me like the center right parties are unsure now about how to proceed on immigration and particularly asylum.

    Historically I think it was seen as a bit of an easy vote winner to make vague promises about getting tough on asylum seekers, but some center right figures seem to be realizing an honest approach is safer in the long run. The likes of Macron, von der Leyen and several our own FF/FG figures have been pretty upfront with statements acknowledging to various degrees that there are no easy answers or quick fixes.

    I think a lot of center right politicians are getting wise to what happened to the likes of the Tories and the Republican party, who've lost what they always represented by opening the door to more extremist and populist figures.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    A stroke of the pen from the sitting government would unmuddy any waters.

    Smuggling is illegal, the smuggled items are contraband. The belief that humans are any different to cocaine, cattle, or cigarettes is where the whole thing is being distorted.

    As I said, the criminality of AS is being ignored due to humanity. Our elected officials have turned into a bunch of Helen Lovejoys.



  • Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭Gamergurll


    I agree except for the thinking that this is anyway to do with humanity. This is a multi million euro industry, were all the money to be taken out of the equation I wonder how much 'humanity' these hoteliers and all the rest would have



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Yeah my posts should have "humanity".

    Whether it's money or populace or fear of being labeled racist or fear of losing out on career progression in the Dail or Brussels.

    I don't believe the majority of politicians believe or agree with what they're spouting.

    But sure when have they ever.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Borrisokane now paying heavy price for their asylum seeker hospitality, with the (mostly women) of 5 years ago now being replaced with single males fleeing their war-torn countries of Georgia, Algeria, Somalia, Jordan, Bangladesh (likely). Hope they enjoy the riverside accommodation.

    Other historically hospitable towns are likely shaking in their little bootys with this backstab by the government.

    I for one am happy. The least desirable migrants should be sent to the most bleeding-heart towns who have been claiming for years how great at integration they are and how others should follow their lead.



  • Registered Users Posts: 875 ✭✭✭sock.rocker*


    Five years and "fully integrated" but still living in a center and subject to being moved around.

    Is that really what people consider fully integrated? Why aren't they paying rent like the rest of us. How many years does it actually take? 15?



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,875 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I don't think it's their fault they are being constantly moved around, to be fair.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭Lotus Flower


    But why are they in a centre for 5 years I think is the point that’s being made



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,605 ✭✭✭prunudo


    If our own citizens born and bred here are struggling to get on the housing ladder and if legal immigrants on high salaries are struggling to get on the housing ladder. What chance do those in the ipas system ever have of getting out of state provided accommodation. I don't know what its going to take for people to wake up to the fact, this influx of asylum seekers is bad news for the country.

    Post edited by prunudo on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    So that's it? The simplistic "stroke of the pen" whereby you simply treat asylum seekers like contraband cigarettes and — whoosh — major progress?

    The problem here of course is that you are pretending that the moral distinction between cigarettes/cattle and people is a "Helen Lovejoy" lefty whine — and even if you do sincerely believe that, which I doubt — a stroke of a pen to remove the moral distinction still doesn't solve the practical differences in how you handle these things. Cigarettes are not biological sentient beings, they don't breathe and starve and can be stored anywhere quite uncontroversially, and of course destroyed. Cattle are animals we raise to harvest and slaughter — when crises like Foot & Mouth occurred, we systematically killed many of them and burned their carcasses as a method of combating the crisis.

    The practices involved in the seizure of cigarettes, cattle or cocaine are simply not anywhere close to the complexities (practical and moral) of dealing with human beings, regardless of how much you believe that such moral and practical complexities can simply be erased by "a stroke of the pen".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    You seem to be only willing to accept the perfect solution to this problem, knowing full well there isn't one. Admittedly I have not read the full thread but generally no one has suggested that this issue is easy to solve, or that any one suggestion is going to solve the problem. So its not entirely clear why you keep saying this?

    There are two options, either do something or do nothing and continue the way we are. If as you suggested neither the right or left have any solutions and there seemingly is no middle ground what do you suggest is the next step? No one with a functioning brain can suggest we continue as is - this is not sustainable. You can talk about nuance etc till the cows come home it does not change the fact the current situation cannot continue.

    Maybe the EU pact helps address some of the issues, maybe it does not. We are at best years away from seeing if it does or not. What should we do in the meantime? The government, NGO's , asylum seekers and even the lefties on here have admitted that the majority are not genuine. Should we continue to let the country be taken advantage of at the cost of billions while we wait for the EU to maybe solve our issue? If it does not work - back to square one, more years of negotiation and maybe have something that might work - rinse and repeat.

    And just to add, stupid is not a word i would use to describe Roderic - dangerous/out of touch are far more suitable ones.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,956 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    "The government, NGO's , asylum seekers and even the lefties on here have admitted that the majority are not genuine."

    I'm not aware that our government, or any NGOs, or any 'lefties' on here have admitted the majority are not genuine. I think you're another poster confusing somebody not meeting the criteria, for not being genuine.

    As I understand the process the criteria for determining who is eligible for refugee status are actually quite complex and subject to ongoing change.

    You'll see here the information the uk uses for determining asylum status for Nigeria alone. There are several hundred pages of documentation for one country alone.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nigeria-country-policy-and-information-notes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭twinytwo


    This response is funny coming from you. You have even admitted yourself that those who cannot get work visas will come here via asylum. Use whatever term makes you feel better, does not change the situation - but as always circle that drain.

    As you have shown, a lot of what "you think" is wrong.

    If there is no criteria for a refugee how is it you expect all this to work?—- but then i suppose bringing the entire world here seems to be your thing.

    Also the UK has nothing to do with us - so again not really relevant.

    Post edited by twinytwo on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,956 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    This is your claim, that: "The government, NGO's , asylum seekers and even the lefties on here have admitted that the majority are not genuine."

    If you have something to support this claim feel free to share it.

    I'm making the point, as I have done several times here, that none of us are aware how many asylum claim are 'genuine' or not. The only information I can see available is showing how many are adjudicated to have met the criteria, itself not truly an indication of a claim being genuine.

    Yes these are UK country reports, used to aid in deciding asylum cases. I've seen similar published for other European countries. Perhaps Ireland uses a some way different approach but I can't see how a decision would be anyway reliable if the adjudicating officers weren't informed on the political, social and military conditions of the country a person is fleeing. Again feel free to provide further information on this if you have it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Do you get paid by the word? I've never seen so much written with so little said.

    We already have the tools, laws and indeed infrastructure to deal with human criminals.

    We need only apply that existing process to AS. So yes a stroke of a pen if even.

    How about, in as few a words as you can. Give us your proposed attempt at a better solution other than rambling?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,956 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    It's not remotely clear what you're actually proposing we introduce 'at the stroke of a pen'?

    Are you saying we should not allow IPAs full stop, and renege from the Geneva Convention? At a guess I'd say it would be technically possible but the consequences would be massive. Even actual far-right governments like Orban's don't do that, officially they just fail everybody's application and try to deport them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,420 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    I'll say it again, louder this time for those in the back.

    DETAIN, PROCESS, DEPORT or GRANT STAY. Absolutely nothing needs to be reneged on re Geneva convention etc.

    Simply apply logical due process to illegal entry to our country as is our right as a sovereign nation.

    Its quite simple really, no idea why it causes so many on here such confusion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,486 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    '' The government is not considering two pay rates. The government wants to raise the minimum pay that a permit worker must earn. This means local workers can't be replaced by cheaper labour from outside the EU. ''

    I am trying to get my head around this gaslighting responce to the link below. .

    Well if the rates were the same the labour from outside the EU would not be cheaper !! There are 2 rates 13 per hour for EU and Irish , 15 per hour for non EU . The only reason for the change is to facilitate family reunification for non EU which will add to the numbers coming . I wonder how one would feel working for less than a new arrival .

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2024/09/02/increased-pay-rates-for-work-permit-holders-could-lead-to-inequality-and-racial-tensions-minister-told/#:~:text=In%20the%20end%2C%20the%20increases,permits%20went%20ahead%20as%20planned&text=Inequality%20and%20increased%20racial%20tensions,the%20start%20of%20this%20year.

    Post edited by rgossip30 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,585 ✭✭✭baldbear


    In Germany If your application for asylum has been accepted you can work but in good old Paddy land after 5 months you can work. This has to be a major draw for people to abuse our asylum system.

    If you have no documents, come in via the UK after been there months/years you should not be allowed work until your status has been decided. Absolute banana stuff from our government.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,486 ✭✭✭rgossip30


    So your logic is it should be legal to enter by any means and this will work as a deterrant .



Advertisement