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

He lives in a council house? String him up I say 🙄

No. It is a requirement to claim asylum, however (& I'm not sure how you couldn't understand that some countries will not/do not give documentation to some of their people) not being able to get documents from your home country cannot be a bar to claiming asylum. It's fairly obvious why that is the case.

Yes. Obviously.

If you think who could be claiming asylum and the countries they might come from, it's obvious why there may be an exemption. It's up to the authorities to decide each case on its own benefits. So, yes asylum seekers are required to provide identifying documents, but authorities can decide if a person is, understandably, without documents, in certain circumstances.

That's simply not true.

There is no requirement to provide ID.

And, as pointed out by another poster, if they managed to flee their own country without documentation, it is highly implausible that they managed to get to this island without first travelling through many safe countries in which they would have had to present ID or claim asylum there to gain entry.

The only reason they would come here is not to seek asylum, but to take advantage of our welfare system. Now I don't blame them for exploiting this loophole. I blame the people who allow this loophole to exist and something needs to change.

None of what you said makes sense.

There's no requirement for anybody seeking asylum to do so in a neighboring country. That's yet another falsehood perpetrated by the anti-immigration brigade.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

As for how people pass through other countries, it's often with great difficulty. The majority of children coming through migrant routes will be exposed to sexual exploitation.

https://www.savethechildren.net/news/children-migrating-europe-experience-horrific-rates-violence-abuse-and-trauma-report

As to why people come to Ireland. The available research tells us people chose European countries on the basis of having community connections there, with a healthy economy and strong employment opportunities as lessor factors. The 'generosity' of welfare benefits was found to be a factor but much less so than other factors.

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/asylum-seekers-in-europe-where-do-people-go-and-why#:~:text=Economic%20conditions&text=Typically%2C%20migrants%20choose%20to%20move,are%20also%20important%20pull%20factors.

It's a myth that if people are fleeing a country they are being persecuted in, they will not get to another country that is safe before they get to Ireland?

They don't have to stay there, but I'd imagine that the country they arrive in will require documentation and/or an asylum application?

If that's the way you want to put it, grand.

An application from a country where it is known to be difficult/impossible to obtain documents is obviously going to be dealt with differently to an application where the person is coming from a country that doesn't have that issue, but doesn't produce documents.

I don't really understand what the point you're trying to make is.

Is your concern with how people arrive in Ireland without documents?

As far as I understand, some will never be asked for documents because they'll be travelling in small craft, back of lorries etc. Some use fake IDs provided by traffickers.

All of these factors can be considered when deciding on offering refugee status, but as the article I've shared several times makes clear, the person's asylum application must still be considered.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

Dont think there was 10 pages of videos. But its getting to the stage that the asylum seekers have more rights than the general public. When a crime is being committed, and then reported people are often asked for proof, footage from phones is easiest way to achieve this. We're giving people who are already scamming us, more protection and they're only laughing at us and our laws.

God I wonder how this happened.

I'm stumped

Not just the NGO's. The Asylum oriented Legal Profession, Hoteliers, Developers, and Landlords as well.

Well then if it's not a requirement, then the IP applicant never has to identify themselves at all. An individual that presents themself and says "I want asylum but I'm not identifying myself" cannot be denied because of it.

Which would be quite a silly understanding to have

If your asylum application can be processed without identification, having identification is not a requirement.

That is the only point I am making.

What are you guys thoughts on Trumps claims about immigrants eating pets?

Should we believe his unsubstantiated hateful rhetoric, alongside the Irish anti-immigration stuff about 'safe' countries and people not contributing?

Or do we recognize that some anti-immigration figures are pushing a very dishonest agenda?

To be fair, Trump was speaking about other peoples claims. I can't see why it would be completely unbelievable. Certain Haitian people are known to eat "mud cookies" so if people from disadvantaged areas of Haiti are shipped en masse to areas in America and see animals roaming freely, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of plausibility that they see them as food.

Hateful rhetoric seems to be anything you percieve as negative. Safe countries isn't hateful. Saying that people living in tents aren't contributing to society isn't hateful.

Some anti ILLEGAL immigration figures are being dishonest, sure. Just as much as some people who think like yourself are too.

It's people who think like you that make me terrified that this government are trying to get the Anti-Hate bill passed.

The conflation between mask wearing and illegal immigration is tenuous at best. I'm not quite sure what the point of that is.

I was told earlier that it was a requirement to have ID when applying for asylum. That is demonstrably false.

The fact is, people are applying for asylum without any proof of who they are, where they are from and why they are here other than what they claim.

We have, essentially, an open border policy and it needs to be addressed. We simply can't allow people into the country and into the general public without being able to verify who they are. That's absolutley insane and needs to be addressed. It's a huge problem.

Post

Not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or simply can't understand a simple point.

You apparently have difficulty understanding how there is a "requirement" for ID if people can start the process without it.

I merely tried to explain it to you by giving you the example of another "requirement". That being the ones we had to wear a mask. By your "definition", it was not a requirement given that there were some exceptions. But no normal person would not have called them "requirements".

Can you really not understand such a simple point? I mean if what you took from the point was the mask wearing equated to illegal immigration, then I'm afraid there is not much more I can work with. I could also have given the example of the requirement to obtain a certain level of grades in certain subjects to study certain courses at third level, and explain that there are exceptions there too (mature students or transfers). The issue is that now if I try to use that as a device to explain it to you, in your brain you'll think doing your leaving cert is the same as being an illegal immigrant.

It has been explained very well.

There is an absolute requirement to provide ID when claiming asylum in Ireland. You cannot have your claim processed without ID. That is the rule. You must have ID.

This makes sense. How can the country process a claim if we don't know who the person is? That is why the requirement to provide ID is there.

The exception is if you tear up your documents. Then you can get your claim processed without ID (and get housing and the right to work after five months) under whatever name you supply.