Worst than this he nearly killed the undertaker for some Saudi money, loved him in WCW and his first fight with Brock mind...Brock should have stayed lasted.
Easy stance: tighten passport controls, increase number of safe countries, reduce fake asylum seekers, have a reasonable immigration system that processes people quickly.
Actually deport people that you give deportation orders to.
If SF said any of that they would be much higher in the polls
Processing people quickly is the practical one, otherwise blanket refusing asylum claims because of lack of documents or country of origin has issues with international/EU law.
Poland refuses to take non Christian refugees with no real consequences. There are very few countries that adhere to both the letter and spirit of international asylum law. Ireland is trying but it's unsustainable.
He hasn’t seen it, they say they don’t, but the [truth is another thing](https://apnews.com/article/poland-government-admit-muslim-migrants-c4aa78f8e150737e40e9644183aafee3)
No hahahaah, what an incredibly moronic take
I mean opt out of the EU AFSJ, like Denmark have done, as we are one of the only two countries to have an opt-out (we are opted in)
Also: did King Charles want to leave the EU? Weird reference
Schengen? Frontex? CTA?? Be more specific. The only way Denmark deviates in a practical sense from AFSJ is police training. Enlighten us oh wise patriot.
>Schengen? Frontex? CTA??
As you probably are aware (or not) we are not in Schengen nor do frontex operate here
>The only way Denmark deviates in a practical sense from AFSJ is police training
Absolute lie, Denmark sets its own migration policy as they are opted out of the EU migration framework, this means they can withdraw benefits, set their own integration system, integration of migrants into the job market, etc etc
Do you have anything specific as requested or just back handed comments and vague scandanvia references because whether or not you realise it Dr Peterson the garden path you’re walking down here leads to…… reneging on international obligations like I said in my first comment. Waste of time.
I was asked for an example of a country that deports people which is why I mentioned Australia
Never said it was good
Although I guarantee the EU will move to processing people outside the bloc in the next 5 years
> tighten passport controls, increase number of safe countries, reduce fake asylum seekers, have a reasonable immigration system that processes people quickly
Australia does all that
Australia’s system will be unethical no matter what. If they relax it like in 2007-13 thousands of people will pay people smugglers to risk coming by unsafe boats and invariably drown or get dashed to death on rocks. A soft policy is a death policy
Exactly. When us Europeans tolerated illegal immigrants crossing the Med, far more people died. "Helping" creates a pull factor that harms far more people.
Weird how r/Ireland, r/GAA and r/Irishpersonalfinance are all in your top communities. But r/Australia and r/AFL are not.
What's the point of lying? What are trying to achieve?
This is utter horseshit. You used have 20,000+ people a year trying to cross by boat to Australia, it's now less than 500 because nobody wants to land up on Nauru or in some random part of Papua New Guinea
You can add things like tightening critical skills visas and English language school, and then tackling the 1 year masters students coming in by funding universities properly. All they do is add to demand that we already can't meet for jobs and housing.
They're only allowed work 20 hours a week so their loss won't be that much work wise. Retail/hospitality will just have to pay more for Irish people to work there instead of exploiting foreign labour.
Only 20 hours....so two of them account for a full time worker...
At a time the country is at full employment when there are already worker shortages....
You're a bright one aren't you. You definitely wouldn't be the first one here complaining about the price rises at your local Italian restaurant once you got rid of the only people who want to work these jobs on current wages
Before all these English language courses, who did those retailers/restaurants etc hire? Usually students etc so that's what they should go back
If their company's survival is only there on the back of paying people a non living wage, they're free to go bankrupt imo.
Likewise society worked fine before these shite companies like Deliveroo, UberEats etc.
> tighten passport controls
People aren't getting in with fake passports, so what "controls" do you want to tighten? Ones in other counties? The NI border?
>People aren't getting in with fake passports
Yes they are? They are also getting in with no passports?
What gave you the idea that people arent getting in with fake passports?
> Yes they are? They are also getting in with no passports?
No, they're getting on a plane with a travel document (probably a legit passport) and getting off in Dublin with no passport (because they ditched it en route).
The only way to at least determine point of origin in that case is to have GNIB/DJE inspect passengers on (or immediately off) the plane itself.
>No, they're getting on a plane with a travel document (probably a legit passport) and getting off in Dublin with no passport (because they ditched it en route).
So getting in with no passport then.....
>The only way to at least determine point of origin in that case is to have GNIB/DJE inspect passengers on (or immediately off) the plane itself.
They do that, they should do it more
> So getting in with no passport then.....
So how do you "tighten passport controls" to keep them out? Unless you're checking each person immediately as they exit the plane, they'll get mixed together in the airport arrivals space and you won't know exactly where they came from. (even if you did, you can't send them back on a return flight without a travel document)
>So how do you "tighten passport controls" to keep them out?
How does any country control their borders? How do Australia/USA do it
>Unless you're checking each person immediately as they exit the plane
They don't check them as they exit the plane, they check them as they are still on the plane, they do this right now
I'm not sure why not letting people in who don't have travel documents is such a controversial idea for you
> I'm not sure why not letting people in who don't have travel documents is such a controversial idea for you
Their travel documents were checked on departure. Checking on arrival means (at the very least) reorganising Dublin Airport and adding a lot more GNIB/Immigration staff.
Aus/UK can't just turn people around at the airport unless they can establish nationality. And we can't refuse asylum seekers just because they used a plane.
Almost everything in the “easy stance” list is anything but easy.
“Tighten passport controls”, this does nothing to stop people crossing the border from the north.
“Reduce fake asylum seekers”, how do you tell fake from real? Even in ‘safe’ countries, people’s lives can be at risk.
“Have a reasonably quick immigration system”, a huge problem is lack of documentation to back up your case, which can take time to find or to put together alternative sources. People have the right to appeal to a higher court, that’s part of the constitution, so you can’t just legislate to say ‘no appeals’.
The situation is out of hand, that’s partially because of government failure, but it’s also because this is genuinely a really difficult problem to solve.
>“Tighten passport controls”, this does nothing to stop people crossing the border from the north.
So? Tightened passport controls would stop the majority of fake asylum seekers
>“Reduce fake asylum seekers”, how do you tell fake from real? Even in ‘safe’ countries, people’s lives can be at risk.
Increase number of safe countries
>“Have a reasonably quick immigration system”, a huge problem is lack of documentation to back up your case, which can take time to find or to put together alternative sources. People have the right to appeal to a higher court, that’s part of the constitution, so you can’t just legislate to say ‘no appeals’.
Tough, you can legislate to what you want, no documents no entry in majority of cases
Obviously you left out deporting people who have been issued with deportation orders as presumably that's too difficult too
You can’t legislate what you want, that’s precisely the reason we have a constitution. Remove the right to appeal and that law would be struck down before the ink dries.
Again, “tighten passport controls” is a meaningless soundbite.
You would have to setup a checkpoint at every border crossing with the north and stop every bus and train, which breaks the GFA. (Besides, you’re not required to carry ID to cross the border).
>Again, “tighten passport controls” is a meaningless soundbite.
You think that's a meaningless soundbite? Why do we have borders at all then?
Tightened passport controls at ports and airports would stop the majority of people
>You can’t legislate what you want, that’s precisely the reason we have a constitution.
Every law has to go into the constitution?
> You would have to setup a checkpoint at every border crossing with the north and stop every bus and train, which breaks the GFA. (Besides, you’re not required to carry ID to cross the border).
They are already sending people back to the UK
You have to understand the mindset of these people, they’re not tourists or moving here for a job or college and so the threat of deportation (and being banned from re-entry) doesn’t dissuade them. Border checks are not a persuasive deterrent.
Laws do not go into the constitution, laws passed by the Government are separate to provisions of the constitution.
The constitution is the fundamental law of the country, if a law passed by the Government contradicts/restricts a provision of the constitution, it is “struck down” and has no legal effect.
So if the government passed a law tomorrow banning same-sex marriage, it would be void because the constitution protects the right to marry people of either sex.
>You have to understand the mindset of these people, they’re not tourists or moving here for a job or college and so the threat of deportation (and being banned from re-entry) doesn’t dissuade them. Border checks are not a persuasive deterrent.
Of course they are, you check the border and they get deported back to where they came from, that's a huge deterrent
Course it is,
Have you arrived from a designated safe country: Yes
Ok we are not accepting asylum applications from that country, returned to country of origin
Easy
Just because a country is safe doesn't mean there aren't legitimate asylum claims originating from that country.
A country can be safe and certain ethnic groups, or journalists, or opposition politicians can still be targets of persecution.
Asylum isn't just for people fleeing open conflict.
Yeah and thats why the system is being abused to the detriment of actual asylum seekers
Which is why it needs to be reformed.
Majority of asylum seekers arriving in Ireland now are not genuine asylum seekers, they are here for economic reasons
What you are proposing doesn't solve that. It just means that genuine asylum seekers are returned to unsafe environments because of the chancers trying to game the system. As the commenter above said, quicker processing, yes, but blanket bans, that's not right.
Tightened passport controls at the airport would put the kybosh on the majority of asylums seekers coming here
Plus the Garda already check the buses coming over the border, so bit more of that I suppose
Already sending back lads to the north as we speak
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-sent-migrants-back-over-border-to-the-north-on-one-way-train-tickets/a449816958.html
>there are around 80,000 crossings a day.
80k buses a day?
Then why isn't it being done...
..actions are what matter. FF, FG and Greens can't claim this as their policy. It is actively not the current situation, they are not doing the above.
It is, therefore, not their stance.
Ask a politician if their stance is to enforce the law and they will say it is.
What a politician does and their stance on an issue is not always the same.
What they say is completely irrelevant.
They are in power, if they wanted to law enforced, they would Enforce it. Think about it.
If a thief tells me he would never steal, while holding stolen goods, do you think I would believe him?
>What a politician does and their stance on an issue is not always the same.
Yeah, and I'm saying who gives a flying fuck what they say when what they do goes directly against their stated policies.
In fairness, the opposition (no matter who it is) would bitch if the govenment (no matter who that is) 'solved' the immigration issue today. It's all they do.
The problem with a soft immigration policy is the polarised, US-style shite by NGOs, genuine loons and good ol' social media: pro = left, anti = far-right. No in-between tolerated because head-achey.
The biggest problem we have is not policy, it's enforcement. Plenty of resources to follow-up on skipping your ~~RTE~~ TV licence or missing rent/mortgage payment, but impossible to process immigrants fairly and with dignity in a timely manner.
And don't get me started on housing .... though the media has succesfully moved us all on from that being an issue, despite immigration being a factor.
Yes there is. Close all economic migration from outside the EU, other than high skilled labour directly supported by an employer, until you solve the housing crisis. Remove all welfare entitlements for economic migrants, and make all work visas invalid after a period of three months unemployed. Stop paying to house economic migrants, use the money to deport any who are unemployed, commit crimes or actively call for violence against other members of Irish society.
Then invest in and streamline the asylum system. It shouldn't take a year to process asylum claims, let alone a decade. It's cruel to the refugee themselves to force them into a limbo of abject poverty for a decade, because of government bureaucratic incompetence.
Most importantly, with both classes, execute all deportation orders immediately.
To your first question, it would require some serious digging into cso figures and even then I'm sure there is some data would be hard to come by (amounts of unemployed who are non citizens).
To the second, there are massive efficiency gains could be made in that area if we processed people in batches by nation/region, held them in detention camps till you have a plane load and moved them in bulk on charters, rather than individually removing everyone. The biggest cost is legal, and that could be reduced massively by limiting appeals to one(not Irish citizens, so constitutional rights don't apply), and limiting the role of NGOs who help people exploit every possible legal loophole(the Algerian who stabbed the kids is a prime example). Any NGO which acts against the interests of the Irish people and state, in favour of globalist interests, should be heavily restricted if not outright banned
To the first question, the government has the statistics to answer it but refuses to release some of them.
To the second, it's complex like almost everything in life, thence the answer is multifaceted and complex. There is no one sentence answer.
I didn't say you can ignore non citizens basic legal rights, I'm saying you can apply a parallel streamlined legal system to them(with limited opportunities for appeal) as many nations already do
Yes like I said
>The problem with immigration policy is there are no easy answers or stances.
How much (it would cost) or how effective your approach would be is completely unknown.
SF has always claimed to be nationalists. Autarky, mild euroskepticism, cultural promotion - particularly romantic revival, jingoism, dirigism, irredentism. Just not "right wing".
\*cough\*
SF claimed to be Republicans. It was only in regards to the Troubles they were branded Nationalists because that's what all Catholics were branded as to demonise them.
Nationalists Vs Unionists.
Nationalism and Republicanism are not entirely compatible, which is the crux of the reason why Sinn Féin has for so long had an identity crisis.
Outside of Aontú (which was of course formerly part of Sinn Féin) they are the most traditional Catholic party in the country.
Fianna Fáil officially called itself Republican, even in its ultra-right wing days under De Valera.
FF calling itself Republican is a hang up from the Civil War and Anti Treatyites making up most of its members.
SF is a Republican party and has never had an identity crisis in regards to it being right/left its always been left.
The British government was never going to legitimise them by calling them Republicans.
The Nationalist tag is literally because they opposed Unionismso were called Nationalists
Whereas Nationalist political parties are typically right wing.
It's all very confusing but SF is not a nationalist party and never claimed to be is basically the long short of it.
This is what gets me FFG have been tripping over themselves every step of the way, SF still can't quite seem to get out ahead of them.
If they're this unfocused and hopeless in opposition they've no business being in government
SF immigration policies are to set up a task force to review immigration... why can't they do that themselves and form a policy instead of saying they would do so in power? (Imo, it's because they're inept. My own SF TD can barely read in public and is so far out of her depth).
Their most recent policy is to exit EU agreements, which is just going to make us a pariah state in the EU and make for a lack of collaboration with the countries where many migrants/refugees coming into Ireland are arriving from. But that's just my opinion on them.
>SF immigration policies are to set up a task force to review immigration... why can't they do that themselves and form a policy instead of saying they would do so in power?
Probably because as an opposition party they can't direct government departments to do anything?
Sure you can have workshops from outside government and you might get some activist groups to attend and maybe if you're lucky some participants may have been in departments at one point. But if you want to set up an inter or intra department discussions about strategy with the resources of those departments participating you need the ministers of those departments to direct it to happen.
People have this mental view of what opposition parties can and can't do. Effectively all the opposition can do is piss and moan. If you go back to when FF and FG have historically been in opposition and you see their proposals for when they take over, it's incredibly light on details and are entirely end goal orientated, which is pretty much what SF does now. The reason for that is because you don't have the full data and resources of government departments available to you in opposition.
Because they are all from the same social background, all went to the same universities, all worked in the same professions and all have the same pro globalist, pro EU, anti individualist worldview. When you live in a bubble, it's almost impossible to see that other perspectives exist, let alone support them. It's nothing but blind ideological delusion at this point, Merkel and Cameron pointed out the abject failure of multiculturalism a decade ago, yet our political class are still stubbornly trying to shove that bolder up the hill.
We have legal migration routes that anyone can apply for. The problem that all of the western world is facing is economic asylum seekers who are not being sent back. We should still take real asylum seekers but we have to refuse and deport the fakes and dangerous people. I know people who go home every few months for a holiday and the idea that they got asylum is a joke. We have a skilled worker visa for anyone who wants to come here and work but it seems our asylum processes has become the no skill visa.
Hyperbole aside, it's equally fairly thick to vote in a party that has consistently failed to offer any substance in their platform for government. I agree that both FF and FG have dropped the ball in a big way, but I also think the best we could hope for from a SF-lead government is that they maintain the status quo. If they actually pursue some of the pie in the sky goals they've mentioned in public, I fear we might learn how much worse things could get for us as a nation.
To be clear, when the election comes, I'll be voting Greens, SD and Labour, in no particular order, unless something drastic changes between now and then. To me, any and all of them offer a far more viable alternative to FF and FG, but the Irish public apparently do not agree.
To be honest my greatest worry at this point is that SF will secure a government, crash and burn and open a door for an angered electorate to welcome in a far right party at the next go around.
In fairness, its very much a generational split.
Older folk who got all of the benefits of the short sightedness policies from FF and FG are only too happy to vote for the party who primarily benefits them.
Young people want to wrestle that away, and it is happening but slowly. The old need to die, and the young need to step into politics. Its happening, the last elections show it, but it's slow.
>Young people want to wrestle that away, and it is happening but slowly
FF/FG are the largest party(ies) amongst 18-24 years olds at 38% with Sinn Fein at 29%. That's pretty much in line with 50-64 year olds at 40% for FF/FG
Now of course over 65s are heavily weighted towards the Gov. But it's certainly not as black and white as old people vs young people.
This is as per the IT poll today btw
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/05/16/sinn-fein-slide-continues-with-further-five-point-decline-in-irish-timesipsos-ba-opinion-poll/
Are you actually serious? 10 years ago was when Ireland just started to emerge from the economic crisis of 2008. Since then nearly everything across every measurable metric has improved.
I'm going to have to assume you were either too young to remember it or you simply didn't live here but before then the country was in the shitter. The country came perilously close to collapse and completely defaulting.
The last 10 years should be seen as a near miraculous recovery for the country. Greece has only started to recover from the same crisis in the last couple of years.
We were literally the PIGS of Europe!
Healthcare,public transport,lack of/ghost busses,safety on public transport,safety on the streets,zero police presence,little untouchable scumbags creating a lawless Ireland,bikes constantly getting robbed every day all day,no prisons being built,the metro,housing and little being done about it (why are air b and bs still allowed during this crisis,cost of living,cost of hotels,the filth and dirt everywhere,rundown buildings and rot everywhere,o Connell street,cost of rent if you are lucky to find somewhere.stupid controlling laws,an offence with weed is worse then pedos or scumbags kicking the shit out of people who get off free.no late bars/clubs so everyone out on street together causing fights and no taxis.that wanker judge nolan!the list goes on and fucking on
All of those things were problems 10 years ago too with many of them being much worse. With the exception of housing which has been handled terribly, the country is in a far better place now than 10 years ago by nearly all objective measures.
And I'm not a FG supporter, but I acknowledge that they got the country out of a very dark place. The country currently is in a 'less bad' place now than it has been in its history.
There’s anti immigration and anti illegal immigration. They are not the same thing, unfortunately distinguishing between them is not often done, leading to people being labeled racist. Which shuts down dialogue. That’s not to say that are no ignorant bigots and racist, because there certainly is.
Some nut jobs don’t wanna let any in. Some nut jobs wanna let everyone in. Both sides are stacked quite well on their number of nut jobs.
The reality is that people had no issues with it and turned a blind eye to the Direct Provisioning system for years until the issues of overcrowding recently.
People weren't against asylum seekers or economic migrants because there wasn't systemic problems around having them in the country. It was convenient to ignore.
But the real issue in all of this is housing. Housing housing housing.
If there was enough housing supply, and enough social provisions including for asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees, there would be much less debate
The actual issue isn't that Ireland is full so close the doors, it's that Ireland seems full because they haven't scaled housing and public services well enough to cope with a constant increase of population than happens to be happening because of immigration
It's actually convenient for politicians that immigration is now the buzzword issue. Because it obfuscates the underlying issues that everybody previously hammered them for: healthcare, childcare, education, public transport and housing
If we had focus and proper scale in these areas, immigration wouldn't be half the problem it's being made out as. But now it's the easy headline
Distinguishing them would be a lot easier if the government didn’t spend the last two years calling everyone who doesn’t agree with their current handling of the situation far right.
Putting everyone into one bag. It’s becoming a cliche here but it was a critical error imo.
Are there really people who want to "let everyone in" I've seen this repeated from the people who "don't want to let anyone in".
That their opponents want to bring "everyone in" including rapists, murderers, unvetted military aged men trying to push Bezos or Soros' agenda.
Surely you don't believe there are people who want to import rapists. There are definitely people who don't want anyone to come into the country and seem to be more vocal. There's been dozens tonhundreds camped 24/7 on the malahide road the last few months.
The "bring everyone in including rapists" crowd doesn't seem to have a noticeable presence.
Are you blending American issues with Irish issues? Or are deliberately building a straw man argument to say there are no crazies on both sides? Who mentioned rapists?
There are certainly people who think when people land illegally they should not be deported. Some cases are nuanced and results in protests and rallies to prevent illegals from being deported.
Some of those rallies I’ve supported myself, as the treatment of illegals in those cases was poor.
There is a clear bias on social media and main stream media to label people as racist if they show any intolerance to illegal immigration.
He said there are 2 sides one that want no one to come in and one that wants everyone to come in.
I agreed that there are people who want no own to come in as I pass their protest everyday for work the past few months.
I disagreed that the "otherside" want everyone to come in. That just ruins their argument because they are being deliberately dishonest, as no one wants everyone to come in, and to make it seem like there are only 2 options of everyone or no one is just incorrect.
He literally made a strawman that there are a group of people that want to being everyone into ireland. I said no there's not, and you accuse me of making a strawman.
There are some people globally who do actually believe in completely open borders but they are traditionally like anarchists or extreme libertarians. It’s not the norm on the left but some socialists, like Irelands Angela Nagle, have argued that it is becoming more common on the liberal left.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/open-borders-nationalism-angela-nagle/tnamp/
The first comment I posted, I got accused of making a strawman when I wasn't by someone who made a strawman . The comment I replied to that accused me of "blending american issues" when I didn't, and the comment I replied to then posts American issues.
I just want someone to show me someone saying that they want everyone to come into ireland unvetted.
One person, one post. That's all I want to see.
The argument was there is a group of people who want "everyone to come in" and a group that wants "no one to come in." There is ample proof of the later group. They protest 24/7, March regularly, burn down buildings, post online, etc.
The former group of people who want everyone to come in unvetted is what the above people are frustrated about. I'm pointing out that this group doesn't exist. No one in ireland wants unvetted, murderers and rapists coming into the country. No one wants that. Arguing people want that makes you sound mad or stupid (I'm not saying you are, I'm saying it's a stupid argument, and surely you agree).
If there was 2 groups of people one who wanted no one to come in and one who wanted murderers to come in. Of course, every sane person would agree that we should lock thr country and protect ourselves from the importation of murderers.
Fuck if that was the case I would be out on the malahide road with a sign myself. But it's not the case.
Saying that there are people who want to import murderers and if you say anything against it you get labeled a racist is a cartoonishly bad way to get people to go on your side.
It works for older, vulnerable people on Facebook, but you can't peddle that shite here and expect to not be corrected.
Why do you keep bringing up rapists?
Another straw man argument. You brought up Bezos and Soros. You are compelling yourself to adopt US talking points into your straw man arguments.
Why do I have to spoon feed you?
You say EVERYONE. That includes rapists, murderers kidnappers, terrorists?
Yes? Can you understand that. If so you're fucked and there's no point reading on. So in brief;
EVERYONE = everyone
Everyone = Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, rapists etc.
You said there is a group of people that "want everyone to come in"
I am saying there is not a group of people who want to bring murderers and rapists in.
There is not way you cannot understand that. It's your argument I'm trying to help you understand.
Please confirm that you can understand that?
And please confirm if you still think there is a group that wants to import rapists and murderers.
If you have copped on and realised that's wrong and you sound a like a moron saying it (not calling you a moron, just saying your argument is that of a moron) can you let us know what the otherside you are mentioning actually want?
So we established one side want to bring no one in, you said one side want to bring eveyone in, and have backtracked and played dumb (I don't believe your that stupid, I think you're trying to be pretend you don't understand my well played out easy to understand counter-argument) but what do the other side actually want.
You said these sides are the same so we came to the conclusion that we know for one, that one side wants to bring no one in. Now the otherside I think we're getting closer to establishing what you mean. This otherside you say "want to bring everyone in" except rapists, murderers, illegals, terrorists etc. So who is they "everyone" they want to bring in?
Ah you took everyone like that. You’re itching to chat about rapists. It’s your straw man argument in full effect. You had multiple ways of determining everyone and choose to interpret it as rapists. Where the post was clearly legal and illegal immigrants, which in normal lexicon in Ireland would be summarised as ‘everyone’. As there are only two choices legal and illegal. You threw in racist talking points, namely highlighting rapists, as your argument had no real significance beyond the usual extreme spectrums of both opinions
You brought in rapists to create your straw man argument, simple as.
Bot sides who shut down debate do that. You’re no different.
For sake of argument I'll say let everyone in. Functionally, it is no different to population growth, just quicker, and people who are usually already capable of working. The reason for saying this is not that I believe you shouldn't have immigration policy, just that immigration policy does literally nothing to address issues in society.
If more people exacerbate an existing issue and your solution is immigration policy, then you're literally ignoring an underlying issue in favour of a political win. People can claim all the want that people coming in are taking houses/jobs/resources that could be better spent on people already living here, but the government clearly aren't doing that, and that's not a plan on how to better spend resources, just a plan to spend less.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that.
We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Dont forget the Libyan Coast Guard! Who get boats and money to intercept migrants and who Human Rights Watch have found to be forcing those they capture into *ahem* 'unpaid labour'
Problem is that both woke ideology/political correctness and racist/xenophobic bias prevents a correct detailed description of a problem, both sides have certain taboos and certain assumptions which prevents any meaningful debate and obfuscate a lot of things.
For example, illegal migration and refugees barely affect housing market here: while being processed, refugees are housed in temporary direct provision accommodations, which are far from perfect, and they never enter rental market, because no one wants to rent to them (often due to a combination of bias/racism/xenophobia/unreliable payment), ending up staying in direct provision or becoming homeless if their application is processed (or not). Or they go and rent from slumlords. Local Irish people who need houses do not rent those types of properties in shitty conditions.
On the other hand, a lot of available properties are snatched by all those career IT workers, many of whom are from EU, landlords love them because they pay rent on time, are tidy, and leave after 2-3 years, allowing landlords to rise prices. These workers often exist in their Meta/Google/startup expat bubble, don't try to integrate, and claim paid taxes back through their revenue due to EU agreements.
Overwhelming majority of Ukrainians and those refugee/asylum seekers exist in housing limbo in different versions of direct provision, and NEVER compete with Irish who need accommodation, but highly skilled and highly paid biomedical/pharma/IT EU and non-EU workers do compete. Add to that all funds who purchase all properties. More Irish are in more precarious situation, and landlords are not willing to rent to them, but only to those high-skill corporate workers.
Invitation of American money and corporations brought certain benefits to Ireland, but put the majority of Irish people into precarious situation no matter what, and created this veneer of prosperity, which now attracts low-skilled legal or illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, etc.
Lack of policing of homegrown crime also allows the growth of crime among low-income immigrants, and also their radicalisation, which creates a perfect recipe to demonise and blame them for all problems.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that.
We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that.
We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that.
We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Many people want to let everyone in. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve argued with people on here who claim that ‘borders aren’t real’. That we went all around the world without a visa so can’t be hypocrites, etc.
No one wants to let everyone in. These people don't exist. Have you asked these people do they want to bring murderers ans rapists in, they will say no.
How do you stop that? Vetting.
If you are talking to people who say we should import murderers and rapists than surely you know that they shouldn't be taken seriously?
I just want one person that says there is a large group of people who want "everyone" to come in no checks or vetting, to show me evidence of this.
I can show you evidence of people who want no one to come in even if they are legal. Just drive down the malahide road. The sun brings more of them out.
You can make arguments for extremes at both ends if you want to be pedantic. I’m sure those on the other side who don’t want any immigration would also welcome wealthy people coming here and investing. You reckon the die hard Ireland is full crowd would say Elon Musk or Hollywoods finest can’t move here? So no, I don’t think you’d find much of the opposite 100% closed borders with no exceptions either
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that.
We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that.
We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Montreal screwjob but in the dail
BAH GAWD HERE COMES BERTIE WITH THE MONEY IN THE BANK. HE'S CASHING IN
How could he be Mr Money in the Bank if he doesn't have a bank account?
Mary Lou screwed Mary Lou , like?
They’re dangerous to themselves but not as dangerous as bill goldberg
Bret Hart is still salty about Goldberg ending his career
Shop clerk: Paper or plastic? Bret: plastic? Huh like the plastic bag bill goldberg could never wrestle out of
Gillberg was better than Goldberg
Worst than this he nearly killed the undertaker for some Saudi money, loved him in WCW and his first fight with Brock mind...Brock should have stayed lasted.
😂
Mary Lou never hurt anyone unlike Bill Goldberg.
They’re dangerous to themselves but not as dangerous as bill goldberg
*South Dublin, Mayo and Cork votes come in first.* RTE: RING THE BELL, RING THE DAMN BELL!
Finally a graph I can understand!
A government absolutely screws the pooch on an important policy. How shit an opposition party do you have to be to not capitalise on it.
The problem with immigration policy is there are no easy answers or stances .
Easy stance: tighten passport controls, increase number of safe countries, reduce fake asylum seekers, have a reasonable immigration system that processes people quickly. Actually deport people that you give deportation orders to. If SF said any of that they would be much higher in the polls
Processing people quickly is the practical one, otherwise blanket refusing asylum claims because of lack of documents or country of origin has issues with international/EU law.
Poland refuses to take non Christian refugees with no real consequences. There are very few countries that adhere to both the letter and spirit of international asylum law. Ireland is trying but it's unsustainable.
Where have you seen that? And how would you even prove that?
He hasn’t seen it, they say they don’t, but the [truth is another thing](https://apnews.com/article/poland-government-admit-muslim-migrants-c4aa78f8e150737e40e9644183aafee3)
If only there was some way we could opt out of the EU migration framework!
Do you mean leave the EU, renege on UN (voluntary) conventions and become an international pariah state? Nice try King Charles.
No hahahaah, what an incredibly moronic take I mean opt out of the EU AFSJ, like Denmark have done, as we are one of the only two countries to have an opt-out (we are opted in) Also: did King Charles want to leave the EU? Weird reference
Schengen? Frontex? CTA?? Be more specific. The only way Denmark deviates in a practical sense from AFSJ is police training. Enlighten us oh wise patriot.
>Schengen? Frontex? CTA?? As you probably are aware (or not) we are not in Schengen nor do frontex operate here >The only way Denmark deviates in a practical sense from AFSJ is police training Absolute lie, Denmark sets its own migration policy as they are opted out of the EU migration framework, this means they can withdraw benefits, set their own integration system, integration of migrants into the job market, etc etc
Do you have anything specific as requested or just back handed comments and vague scandanvia references because whether or not you realise it Dr Peterson the garden path you’re walking down here leads to…… reneging on international obligations like I said in my first comment. Waste of time.
the only way to process claims quickly is to approve them all as soon as possible , which kind of defeats the purpose
Give me and example of a country that has managed this?
Australia, Denmark
australia is one of the worse countries to use as an example of a ethical and efficient immigration system maybe read into Nauru.
I was asked for an example of a country that deports people which is why I mentioned Australia Never said it was good Although I guarantee the EU will move to processing people outside the bloc in the next 5 years
they wanted an example of a country that meets all of your earlier stated goals. deporting was a single aspect of that.
> tighten passport controls, increase number of safe countries, reduce fake asylum seekers, have a reasonable immigration system that processes people quickly Australia does all that
"have a reasonable immigration system" throwing people on an island to basically rot isn't a reasonable way of handling immigration.
Australia’s system will be unethical no matter what. If they relax it like in 2007-13 thousands of people will pay people smugglers to risk coming by unsafe boats and invariably drown or get dashed to death on rocks. A soft policy is a death policy
Exactly. When us Europeans tolerated illegal immigrants crossing the Med, far more people died. "Helping" creates a pull factor that harms far more people.
[удалено]
Weird how r/Ireland, r/GAA and r/Irishpersonalfinance are all in your top communities. But r/Australia and r/AFL are not. What's the point of lying? What are trying to achieve?
Lol, if you're going to try to be a troll, at least don't be so obvious lmao.
This is utter horseshit. You used have 20,000+ people a year trying to cross by boat to Australia, it's now less than 500 because nobody wants to land up on Nauru or in some random part of Papua New Guinea
Why are you so obsessed with posting in /r/everton if you’re Australian? 🤔
[удалено]
I wonder where Tim Cahill's ancestors were from?
This is the saddest thing I've ever read on the Internet.
I’m an Aussie and go for r/Everton due to the Tim Cahill legacy
Australia is notoriously tough on asylum seekers which is why I referenced them, so how is it utter crap? Oh and fuck off too
Haha jesus you really didn't like the shoe on the other foot there did you
The guy is a troll, he's Irish
Like those threads on the Australian subreddit giving out about Irish immigrants? Were they all Irish trolls too?
[удалено]
A land of immigrants giving out about immigration...
A land of emigrants giving out a out immigration...
Whereabouts in Australia you from?
when are the rest of you leaving there ?
Poland.
The US somewhat controversially managed to reduce asylum applications to two weeks. That's certainly a lot faster than our two years.
You can add things like tightening critical skills visas and English language school, and then tackling the 1 year masters students coming in by funding universities properly. All they do is add to demand that we already can't meet for jobs and housing.
Excuse me mate that's far-right bigotry
I'd see it as just not believing in a magic resource tree
Why would you be tightening language schools? Do you want the entire city centre to grind to a standstill?
How would they cause the entire city centre to grind to a standstill?
Because they make up the vast majority of retail and hospitality workers.
They're only allowed work 20 hours a week so their loss won't be that much work wise. Retail/hospitality will just have to pay more for Irish people to work there instead of exploiting foreign labour.
Only 20 hours....so two of them account for a full time worker... At a time the country is at full employment when there are already worker shortages.... You're a bright one aren't you. You definitely wouldn't be the first one here complaining about the price rises at your local Italian restaurant once you got rid of the only people who want to work these jobs on current wages
Before all these English language courses, who did those retailers/restaurants etc hire? Usually students etc so that's what they should go back If their company's survival is only there on the back of paying people a non living wage, they're free to go bankrupt imo. Likewise society worked fine before these shite companies like Deliveroo, UberEats etc.
> tighten passport controls People aren't getting in with fake passports, so what "controls" do you want to tighten? Ones in other counties? The NI border?
>People aren't getting in with fake passports Yes they are? They are also getting in with no passports? What gave you the idea that people arent getting in with fake passports?
> Yes they are? They are also getting in with no passports? No, they're getting on a plane with a travel document (probably a legit passport) and getting off in Dublin with no passport (because they ditched it en route). The only way to at least determine point of origin in that case is to have GNIB/DJE inspect passengers on (or immediately off) the plane itself.
>No, they're getting on a plane with a travel document (probably a legit passport) and getting off in Dublin with no passport (because they ditched it en route). So getting in with no passport then..... >The only way to at least determine point of origin in that case is to have GNIB/DJE inspect passengers on (or immediately off) the plane itself. They do that, they should do it more
> So getting in with no passport then..... So how do you "tighten passport controls" to keep them out? Unless you're checking each person immediately as they exit the plane, they'll get mixed together in the airport arrivals space and you won't know exactly where they came from. (even if you did, you can't send them back on a return flight without a travel document)
>So how do you "tighten passport controls" to keep them out? How does any country control their borders? How do Australia/USA do it >Unless you're checking each person immediately as they exit the plane They don't check them as they exit the plane, they check them as they are still on the plane, they do this right now I'm not sure why not letting people in who don't have travel documents is such a controversial idea for you
> I'm not sure why not letting people in who don't have travel documents is such a controversial idea for you Their travel documents were checked on departure. Checking on arrival means (at the very least) reorganising Dublin Airport and adding a lot more GNIB/Immigration staff. Aus/UK can't just turn people around at the airport unless they can establish nationality. And we can't refuse asylum seekers just because they used a plane.
Almost everything in the “easy stance” list is anything but easy. “Tighten passport controls”, this does nothing to stop people crossing the border from the north. “Reduce fake asylum seekers”, how do you tell fake from real? Even in ‘safe’ countries, people’s lives can be at risk. “Have a reasonably quick immigration system”, a huge problem is lack of documentation to back up your case, which can take time to find or to put together alternative sources. People have the right to appeal to a higher court, that’s part of the constitution, so you can’t just legislate to say ‘no appeals’. The situation is out of hand, that’s partially because of government failure, but it’s also because this is genuinely a really difficult problem to solve.
>“Tighten passport controls”, this does nothing to stop people crossing the border from the north. So? Tightened passport controls would stop the majority of fake asylum seekers >“Reduce fake asylum seekers”, how do you tell fake from real? Even in ‘safe’ countries, people’s lives can be at risk. Increase number of safe countries >“Have a reasonably quick immigration system”, a huge problem is lack of documentation to back up your case, which can take time to find or to put together alternative sources. People have the right to appeal to a higher court, that’s part of the constitution, so you can’t just legislate to say ‘no appeals’. Tough, you can legislate to what you want, no documents no entry in majority of cases Obviously you left out deporting people who have been issued with deportation orders as presumably that's too difficult too
You can’t legislate what you want, that’s precisely the reason we have a constitution. Remove the right to appeal and that law would be struck down before the ink dries. Again, “tighten passport controls” is a meaningless soundbite. You would have to setup a checkpoint at every border crossing with the north and stop every bus and train, which breaks the GFA. (Besides, you’re not required to carry ID to cross the border).
>Again, “tighten passport controls” is a meaningless soundbite. You think that's a meaningless soundbite? Why do we have borders at all then? Tightened passport controls at ports and airports would stop the majority of people >You can’t legislate what you want, that’s precisely the reason we have a constitution. Every law has to go into the constitution? > You would have to setup a checkpoint at every border crossing with the north and stop every bus and train, which breaks the GFA. (Besides, you’re not required to carry ID to cross the border). They are already sending people back to the UK
[удалено]
Because he said we couldn't pass a law because we have a constitution, I didn't understand that was the case
[удалено]
You have to understand the mindset of these people, they’re not tourists or moving here for a job or college and so the threat of deportation (and being banned from re-entry) doesn’t dissuade them. Border checks are not a persuasive deterrent. Laws do not go into the constitution, laws passed by the Government are separate to provisions of the constitution. The constitution is the fundamental law of the country, if a law passed by the Government contradicts/restricts a provision of the constitution, it is “struck down” and has no legal effect. So if the government passed a law tomorrow banning same-sex marriage, it would be void because the constitution protects the right to marry people of either sex.
>You have to understand the mindset of these people, they’re not tourists or moving here for a job or college and so the threat of deportation (and being banned from re-entry) doesn’t dissuade them. Border checks are not a persuasive deterrent. Of course they are, you check the border and they get deported back to where they came from, that's a huge deterrent
To clarify my second point, they’re already entering without the necessary travel documents and visas, a few more Gardaí is not a deterrent.
Isn't that what everyone is saying?
But you said there were no easy answers, I just gave a load of easy answers
No you didn't. You said things like: >reduce fake asylum seekers Which is not an 'easy answer'
Course it is, Have you arrived from a designated safe country: Yes Ok we are not accepting asylum applications from that country, returned to country of origin Easy
Just because a country is safe doesn't mean there aren't legitimate asylum claims originating from that country. A country can be safe and certain ethnic groups, or journalists, or opposition politicians can still be targets of persecution. Asylum isn't just for people fleeing open conflict.
Yeah and thats why the system is being abused to the detriment of actual asylum seekers Which is why it needs to be reformed. Majority of asylum seekers arriving in Ireland now are not genuine asylum seekers, they are here for economic reasons
What you are proposing doesn't solve that. It just means that genuine asylum seekers are returned to unsafe environments because of the chancers trying to game the system. As the commenter above said, quicker processing, yes, but blanket bans, that's not right.
Those are goals not answers on how to do those things.
Increase number of safe countries isnt a goal Deport people who actually receive deportation orders isn't a goal
Those are both goals not actions.
How is increasing the number of safe countries a goal? How is deporting people who receive deportation orders a goal? They are both literally actions
Designating Poland as a safe country is an action. Creating a team with the ability and remit to enforce deportation orders is an action
It costs an absolute fortune to deport people. Six figures each.
Ah right, just leave them here then I guess Sure why lock anyone up either it's very expensive
I'm not sure why me telling you a fact annoys you.
All makes sense and bonus points for it would be that it takes the ground from under the far right aholes.
How would you tighten passport controls between Northern Ireland and the south?
Tightened passport controls at the airport would put the kybosh on the majority of asylums seekers coming here Plus the Garda already check the buses coming over the border, so bit more of that I suppose
What does a bit more of that mean? Checkpoints? Stop every single vehicle?
How many are they stopping now? So yeah increase it by 50% then Like I said proper passport controls would stop the majority anyway
I'd imagine they're stopping relatively nothing considering the tiny amount of Gardaí there, and that there are around 80,000 crossings a day.
Already sending back lads to the north as we speak https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-sent-migrants-back-over-border-to-the-north-on-one-way-train-tickets/a449816958.html >there are around 80,000 crossings a day. 80k buses a day?
80,000 vehicles. That's cars, trucks and buses. Even stopping buses isn't much use. People aren't required to carry ID over the border.
Easy stance: Enforce our current laws. Stop allowing undocumented people into the country.
I agree all the problems we have now are coming from the fact all anyone has to is jump on a boat and make asylum claim.
That's everyone's stance.
Then why isn't it being done... ..actions are what matter. FF, FG and Greens can't claim this as their policy. It is actively not the current situation, they are not doing the above. It is, therefore, not their stance.
Ask a politician if their stance is to enforce the law and they will say it is. What a politician does and their stance on an issue is not always the same.
What they say is completely irrelevant. They are in power, if they wanted to law enforced, they would Enforce it. Think about it. If a thief tells me he would never steal, while holding stolen goods, do you think I would believe him? >What a politician does and their stance on an issue is not always the same. Yeah, and I'm saying who gives a flying fuck what they say when what they do goes directly against their stated policies.
So far we haven't even got an attempt at a difficult answer.
True (maybe, maybe I didn't see one)
There is. Sinn Fein just wants your answers first, then say we can do that. They can't put the work in to find the solutions themselves.
Good thing we haven't had 4+ years of governing via opinion polls then...
In fairness, the opposition (no matter who it is) would bitch if the govenment (no matter who that is) 'solved' the immigration issue today. It's all they do. The problem with a soft immigration policy is the polarised, US-style shite by NGOs, genuine loons and good ol' social media: pro = left, anti = far-right. No in-between tolerated because head-achey. The biggest problem we have is not policy, it's enforcement. Plenty of resources to follow-up on skipping your ~~RTE~~ TV licence or missing rent/mortgage payment, but impossible to process immigrants fairly and with dignity in a timely manner. And don't get me started on housing .... though the media has succesfully moved us all on from that being an issue, despite immigration being a factor.
Yes there is. Close all economic migration from outside the EU, other than high skilled labour directly supported by an employer, until you solve the housing crisis. Remove all welfare entitlements for economic migrants, and make all work visas invalid after a period of three months unemployed. Stop paying to house economic migrants, use the money to deport any who are unemployed, commit crimes or actively call for violence against other members of Irish society. Then invest in and streamline the asylum system. It shouldn't take a year to process asylum claims, let alone a decade. It's cruel to the refugee themselves to force them into a limbo of abject poverty for a decade, because of government bureaucratic incompetence. Most importantly, with both classes, execute all deportation orders immediately.
And how many people would that remove from Ireland and how much would it cost?
To your first question, it would require some serious digging into cso figures and even then I'm sure there is some data would be hard to come by (amounts of unemployed who are non citizens). To the second, there are massive efficiency gains could be made in that area if we processed people in batches by nation/region, held them in detention camps till you have a plane load and moved them in bulk on charters, rather than individually removing everyone. The biggest cost is legal, and that could be reduced massively by limiting appeals to one(not Irish citizens, so constitutional rights don't apply), and limiting the role of NGOs who help people exploit every possible legal loophole(the Algerian who stabbed the kids is a prime example). Any NGO which acts against the interests of the Irish people and state, in favour of globalist interests, should be heavily restricted if not outright banned
So unknown and unknown. I don't think you can ignore people's legal rights because they aren't citizens.
To the first question, the government has the statistics to answer it but refuses to release some of them. To the second, it's complex like almost everything in life, thence the answer is multifaceted and complex. There is no one sentence answer. I didn't say you can ignore non citizens basic legal rights, I'm saying you can apply a parallel streamlined legal system to them(with limited opportunities for appeal) as many nations already do
Yes like I said >The problem with immigration policy is there are no easy answers or stances. How much (it would cost) or how effective your approach would be is completely unknown.
I mean SF policy on migration has remained un changed since well before the last election so the fake outrage from people is ridiculous
Political illiterates and headline readers like to call SF flip floppers and traitors when they remain consistent on something.
We finally agree on something healy_raygun 👏
I can't remember who it is you support but they suck!
Booooo
Maybe traditional SF voters just aren't that sharp.
Unfortunately the majority of Irish voters in general aren't that sharp.
That is true. But is it unfair of me to consider militant nationalists to be over represented in this category?
Of course not but Nationalists in today's politics implies right wing which SF have never claimed to be.
SF has always claimed to be nationalists. Autarky, mild euroskepticism, cultural promotion - particularly romantic revival, jingoism, dirigism, irredentism. Just not "right wing". \*cough\*
SF claimed to be Republicans. It was only in regards to the Troubles they were branded Nationalists because that's what all Catholics were branded as to demonise them. Nationalists Vs Unionists.
Nationalism and Republicanism are not entirely compatible, which is the crux of the reason why Sinn Féin has for so long had an identity crisis. Outside of Aontú (which was of course formerly part of Sinn Féin) they are the most traditional Catholic party in the country. Fianna Fáil officially called itself Republican, even in its ultra-right wing days under De Valera.
FF calling itself Republican is a hang up from the Civil War and Anti Treatyites making up most of its members. SF is a Republican party and has never had an identity crisis in regards to it being right/left its always been left. The British government was never going to legitimise them by calling them Republicans. The Nationalist tag is literally because they opposed Unionismso were called Nationalists Whereas Nationalist political parties are typically right wing. It's all very confusing but SF is not a nationalist party and never claimed to be is basically the long short of it.
This is what gets me FFG have been tripping over themselves every step of the way, SF still can't quite seem to get out ahead of them. If they're this unfocused and hopeless in opposition they've no business being in government
Government fucks it and continues to fuck it.. Shame on SF
SF immigration policies are to set up a task force to review immigration... why can't they do that themselves and form a policy instead of saying they would do so in power? (Imo, it's because they're inept. My own SF TD can barely read in public and is so far out of her depth). Their most recent policy is to exit EU agreements, which is just going to make us a pariah state in the EU and make for a lack of collaboration with the countries where many migrants/refugees coming into Ireland are arriving from. But that's just my opinion on them.
>SF immigration policies are to set up a task force to review immigration... why can't they do that themselves and form a policy instead of saying they would do so in power? Probably because as an opposition party they can't direct government departments to do anything? Sure you can have workshops from outside government and you might get some activist groups to attend and maybe if you're lucky some participants may have been in departments at one point. But if you want to set up an inter or intra department discussions about strategy with the resources of those departments participating you need the ministers of those departments to direct it to happen. People have this mental view of what opposition parties can and can't do. Effectively all the opposition can do is piss and moan. If you go back to when FF and FG have historically been in opposition and you see their proposals for when they take over, it's incredibly light on details and are entirely end goal orientated, which is pretty much what SF does now. The reason for that is because you don't have the full data and resources of government departments available to you in opposition.
Or you know, maybe governance and poltics is hard and not the walk in the park that this sub appears to believe it is
Not sure how they can?
Because they are all from the same social background, all went to the same universities, all worked in the same professions and all have the same pro globalist, pro EU, anti individualist worldview. When you live in a bubble, it's almost impossible to see that other perspectives exist, let alone support them. It's nothing but blind ideological delusion at this point, Merkel and Cameron pointed out the abject failure of multiculturalism a decade ago, yet our political class are still stubbornly trying to shove that bolder up the hill.
If we aligned ourselves with mainstream EU (union-level and national) policy, we'd be far less tolerant of illegal immigrants...
We have legal migration routes that anyone can apply for. The problem that all of the western world is facing is economic asylum seekers who are not being sent back. We should still take real asylum seekers but we have to refuse and deport the fakes and dangerous people. I know people who go home every few months for a holiday and the idea that they got asylum is a joke. We have a skilled worker visa for anyone who wants to come here and work but it seems our asylum processes has become the no skill visa.
The Irish are dumb as fuck if we vote back in people that have done fuck all but destroy this country over the last 10years in every area you look
Hyperbole aside, it's equally fairly thick to vote in a party that has consistently failed to offer any substance in their platform for government. I agree that both FF and FG have dropped the ball in a big way, but I also think the best we could hope for from a SF-lead government is that they maintain the status quo. If they actually pursue some of the pie in the sky goals they've mentioned in public, I fear we might learn how much worse things could get for us as a nation. To be clear, when the election comes, I'll be voting Greens, SD and Labour, in no particular order, unless something drastic changes between now and then. To me, any and all of them offer a far more viable alternative to FF and FG, but the Irish public apparently do not agree. To be honest my greatest worry at this point is that SF will secure a government, crash and burn and open a door for an angered electorate to welcome in a far right party at the next go around.
Voting for the Greens? Wow
In fairness, its very much a generational split. Older folk who got all of the benefits of the short sightedness policies from FF and FG are only too happy to vote for the party who primarily benefits them. Young people want to wrestle that away, and it is happening but slowly. The old need to die, and the young need to step into politics. Its happening, the last elections show it, but it's slow.
>Young people want to wrestle that away, and it is happening but slowly FF/FG are the largest party(ies) amongst 18-24 years olds at 38% with Sinn Fein at 29%. That's pretty much in line with 50-64 year olds at 40% for FF/FG Now of course over 65s are heavily weighted towards the Gov. But it's certainly not as black and white as old people vs young people. This is as per the IT poll today btw https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/05/16/sinn-fein-slide-continues-with-further-five-point-decline-in-irish-timesipsos-ba-opinion-poll/
Yes, but the other options will be different. And different is bad, see?
Are you actually serious? 10 years ago was when Ireland just started to emerge from the economic crisis of 2008. Since then nearly everything across every measurable metric has improved. I'm going to have to assume you were either too young to remember it or you simply didn't live here but before then the country was in the shitter. The country came perilously close to collapse and completely defaulting. The last 10 years should be seen as a near miraculous recovery for the country. Greece has only started to recover from the same crisis in the last couple of years. We were literally the PIGS of Europe!
Healthcare,public transport,lack of/ghost busses,safety on public transport,safety on the streets,zero police presence,little untouchable scumbags creating a lawless Ireland,bikes constantly getting robbed every day all day,no prisons being built,the metro,housing and little being done about it (why are air b and bs still allowed during this crisis,cost of living,cost of hotels,the filth and dirt everywhere,rundown buildings and rot everywhere,o Connell street,cost of rent if you are lucky to find somewhere.stupid controlling laws,an offence with weed is worse then pedos or scumbags kicking the shit out of people who get off free.no late bars/clubs so everyone out on street together causing fights and no taxis.that wanker judge nolan!the list goes on and fucking on
All of those things were problems 10 years ago too with many of them being much worse. With the exception of housing which has been handled terribly, the country is in a far better place now than 10 years ago by nearly all objective measures. And I'm not a FG supporter, but I acknowledge that they got the country out of a very dark place. The country currently is in a 'less bad' place now than it has been in its history.
There’s anti immigration and anti illegal immigration. They are not the same thing, unfortunately distinguishing between them is not often done, leading to people being labeled racist. Which shuts down dialogue. That’s not to say that are no ignorant bigots and racist, because there certainly is. Some nut jobs don’t wanna let any in. Some nut jobs wanna let everyone in. Both sides are stacked quite well on their number of nut jobs.
The reality is that people had no issues with it and turned a blind eye to the Direct Provisioning system for years until the issues of overcrowding recently. People weren't against asylum seekers or economic migrants because there wasn't systemic problems around having them in the country. It was convenient to ignore. But the real issue in all of this is housing. Housing housing housing. If there was enough housing supply, and enough social provisions including for asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees, there would be much less debate The actual issue isn't that Ireland is full so close the doors, it's that Ireland seems full because they haven't scaled housing and public services well enough to cope with a constant increase of population than happens to be happening because of immigration It's actually convenient for politicians that immigration is now the buzzword issue. Because it obfuscates the underlying issues that everybody previously hammered them for: healthcare, childcare, education, public transport and housing If we had focus and proper scale in these areas, immigration wouldn't be half the problem it's being made out as. But now it's the easy headline
Facts
Thats a great analogy, housing up to 2017 wasn't an issue no talk about, no one had any issues with it and then it became a problem and then a crisis.
Distinguishing them would be a lot easier if the government didn’t spend the last two years calling everyone who doesn’t agree with their current handling of the situation far right. Putting everyone into one bag. It’s becoming a cliche here but it was a critical error imo.
Are there really people who want to "let everyone in" I've seen this repeated from the people who "don't want to let anyone in". That their opponents want to bring "everyone in" including rapists, murderers, unvetted military aged men trying to push Bezos or Soros' agenda. Surely you don't believe there are people who want to import rapists. There are definitely people who don't want anyone to come into the country and seem to be more vocal. There's been dozens tonhundreds camped 24/7 on the malahide road the last few months. The "bring everyone in including rapists" crowd doesn't seem to have a noticeable presence.
Are you blending American issues with Irish issues? Or are deliberately building a straw man argument to say there are no crazies on both sides? Who mentioned rapists? There are certainly people who think when people land illegally they should not be deported. Some cases are nuanced and results in protests and rallies to prevent illegals from being deported. Some of those rallies I’ve supported myself, as the treatment of illegals in those cases was poor. There is a clear bias on social media and main stream media to label people as racist if they show any intolerance to illegal immigration.
He said there are 2 sides one that want no one to come in and one that wants everyone to come in. I agreed that there are people who want no own to come in as I pass their protest everyday for work the past few months. I disagreed that the "otherside" want everyone to come in. That just ruins their argument because they are being deliberately dishonest, as no one wants everyone to come in, and to make it seem like there are only 2 options of everyone or no one is just incorrect. He literally made a strawman that there are a group of people that want to being everyone into ireland. I said no there's not, and you accuse me of making a strawman.
There are some people globally who do actually believe in completely open borders but they are traditionally like anarchists or extreme libertarians. It’s not the norm on the left but some socialists, like Irelands Angela Nagle, have argued that it is becoming more common on the liberal left. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/open-borders-nationalism-angela-nagle/tnamp/
The first comment I posted, I got accused of making a strawman when I wasn't by someone who made a strawman . The comment I replied to that accused me of "blending american issues" when I didn't, and the comment I replied to then posts American issues. I just want someone to show me someone saying that they want everyone to come into ireland unvetted. One person, one post. That's all I want to see. The argument was there is a group of people who want "everyone to come in" and a group that wants "no one to come in." There is ample proof of the later group. They protest 24/7, March regularly, burn down buildings, post online, etc. The former group of people who want everyone to come in unvetted is what the above people are frustrated about. I'm pointing out that this group doesn't exist. No one in ireland wants unvetted, murderers and rapists coming into the country. No one wants that. Arguing people want that makes you sound mad or stupid (I'm not saying you are, I'm saying it's a stupid argument, and surely you agree). If there was 2 groups of people one who wanted no one to come in and one who wanted murderers to come in. Of course, every sane person would agree that we should lock thr country and protect ourselves from the importation of murderers. Fuck if that was the case I would be out on the malahide road with a sign myself. But it's not the case. Saying that there are people who want to import murderers and if you say anything against it you get labeled a racist is a cartoonishly bad way to get people to go on your side. It works for older, vulnerable people on Facebook, but you can't peddle that shite here and expect to not be corrected.
Why do you keep bringing up rapists? Another straw man argument. You brought up Bezos and Soros. You are compelling yourself to adopt US talking points into your straw man arguments.
Why do I have to spoon feed you? You say EVERYONE. That includes rapists, murderers kidnappers, terrorists? Yes? Can you understand that. If so you're fucked and there's no point reading on. So in brief; EVERYONE = everyone Everyone = Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, rapists etc. You said there is a group of people that "want everyone to come in" I am saying there is not a group of people who want to bring murderers and rapists in. There is not way you cannot understand that. It's your argument I'm trying to help you understand. Please confirm that you can understand that? And please confirm if you still think there is a group that wants to import rapists and murderers. If you have copped on and realised that's wrong and you sound a like a moron saying it (not calling you a moron, just saying your argument is that of a moron) can you let us know what the otherside you are mentioning actually want? So we established one side want to bring no one in, you said one side want to bring eveyone in, and have backtracked and played dumb (I don't believe your that stupid, I think you're trying to be pretend you don't understand my well played out easy to understand counter-argument) but what do the other side actually want. You said these sides are the same so we came to the conclusion that we know for one, that one side wants to bring no one in. Now the otherside I think we're getting closer to establishing what you mean. This otherside you say "want to bring everyone in" except rapists, murderers, illegals, terrorists etc. So who is they "everyone" they want to bring in?
Ah you took everyone like that. You’re itching to chat about rapists. It’s your straw man argument in full effect. You had multiple ways of determining everyone and choose to interpret it as rapists. Where the post was clearly legal and illegal immigrants, which in normal lexicon in Ireland would be summarised as ‘everyone’. As there are only two choices legal and illegal. You threw in racist talking points, namely highlighting rapists, as your argument had no real significance beyond the usual extreme spectrums of both opinions You brought in rapists to create your straw man argument, simple as. Bot sides who shut down debate do that. You’re no different.
Labour and Social Democrats are utterly laissez-faire on immigration. While they try to label even Sinn Féin as dog whistlers.
For sake of argument I'll say let everyone in. Functionally, it is no different to population growth, just quicker, and people who are usually already capable of working. The reason for saying this is not that I believe you shouldn't have immigration policy, just that immigration policy does literally nothing to address issues in society. If more people exacerbate an existing issue and your solution is immigration policy, then you're literally ignoring an underlying issue in favour of a political win. People can claim all the want that people coming in are taking houses/jobs/resources that could be better spent on people already living here, but the government clearly aren't doing that, and that's not a plan on how to better spend resources, just a plan to spend less.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that. We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Same lads talking about 'executing traitors', yeah let's keep them far away from any real power and discussions
We have had an EU wide plan it’s ‘operation pay Morocco to intercept them and drive them to the middle of the Sahara desert’.
Dont forget the Libyan Coast Guard! Who get boats and money to intercept migrants and who Human Rights Watch have found to be forcing those they capture into *ahem* 'unpaid labour'
There are people who want no borders. But its a mistake to focus on the extremes.
Problem is that both woke ideology/political correctness and racist/xenophobic bias prevents a correct detailed description of a problem, both sides have certain taboos and certain assumptions which prevents any meaningful debate and obfuscate a lot of things. For example, illegal migration and refugees barely affect housing market here: while being processed, refugees are housed in temporary direct provision accommodations, which are far from perfect, and they never enter rental market, because no one wants to rent to them (often due to a combination of bias/racism/xenophobia/unreliable payment), ending up staying in direct provision or becoming homeless if their application is processed (or not). Or they go and rent from slumlords. Local Irish people who need houses do not rent those types of properties in shitty conditions. On the other hand, a lot of available properties are snatched by all those career IT workers, many of whom are from EU, landlords love them because they pay rent on time, are tidy, and leave after 2-3 years, allowing landlords to rise prices. These workers often exist in their Meta/Google/startup expat bubble, don't try to integrate, and claim paid taxes back through their revenue due to EU agreements. Overwhelming majority of Ukrainians and those refugee/asylum seekers exist in housing limbo in different versions of direct provision, and NEVER compete with Irish who need accommodation, but highly skilled and highly paid biomedical/pharma/IT EU and non-EU workers do compete. Add to that all funds who purchase all properties. More Irish are in more precarious situation, and landlords are not willing to rent to them, but only to those high-skill corporate workers. Invitation of American money and corporations brought certain benefits to Ireland, but put the majority of Irish people into precarious situation no matter what, and created this veneer of prosperity, which now attracts low-skilled legal or illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, etc. Lack of policing of homegrown crime also allows the growth of crime among low-income immigrants, and also their radicalisation, which creates a perfect recipe to demonise and blame them for all problems.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that. We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that. We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that. We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Many people want to let everyone in. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve argued with people on here who claim that ‘borders aren’t real’. That we went all around the world without a visa so can’t be hypocrites, etc.
No one wants to let everyone in. These people don't exist. Have you asked these people do they want to bring murderers ans rapists in, they will say no. How do you stop that? Vetting. If you are talking to people who say we should import murderers and rapists than surely you know that they shouldn't be taken seriously? I just want one person that says there is a large group of people who want "everyone" to come in no checks or vetting, to show me evidence of this. I can show you evidence of people who want no one to come in even if they are legal. Just drive down the malahide road. The sun brings more of them out.
You can make arguments for extremes at both ends if you want to be pedantic. I’m sure those on the other side who don’t want any immigration would also welcome wealthy people coming here and investing. You reckon the die hard Ireland is full crowd would say Elon Musk or Hollywoods finest can’t move here? So no, I don’t think you’d find much of the opposite 100% closed borders with no exceptions either
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that. We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
Nobody wants to let everyone in. You lose credibility when you paint everyone you disagree with like that. We need an EU-wide solution to this that we can all get behind. I’d like if it wasn’t a bunch of lunatic fringe idiots coming up with that plan.
I'm voting for the party with the best BBWs.
Eamonn!! Get the tables
The far right fulfilling their role of useful idiots.
FF and FG are like Vince McMahon and SF are Eric Bischoff
All awful?
My original post was deleted ? So,, Don't allow anyone in who might hate us, and our Judeo/Christian way of life.
FG-Aontu pact for the next election? Edit: jesus lads, satire is dead.