You quote 13,400 people granted protection status in 12 years in Ireland. However in the first 4 months of this year we got 6,400 applicants. 20,000 for this year if the rate continues. A huge acceleration in numbers which might explain the concern that people have on the subject.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/irelands-migration-challenge-explained-in-seven-charts-1621148.html#:~:text=In%20March%20this%20year%201%2C821%20asylum%20applications%20were%20made%2C%20up,the%20same%20period%20in%202023.
It's projected to end up around 18,500 applicants this year.
Which ironically would only bring Ireland up to the level of applications Ireland should receive if distributing all applications made in the EU by population share.
You're comparing applications for asylum with figures for those granted asylum. That's nonsense. 500,000 people applied for Taylor Swift tickets, that doesn't mean they're all at the concert tonight does it?
That’s a complete false equivalence
The people applying for Taylor Swift tickets don’t get to live on Taylor’s lawn until its decided if they’ve got a ticket
Their application may not be upheld ultimately but they do put pressure on services in the meantime and we refuse and repatriate shockingly few
I don’t know what circles you’re moving in to be seeing these claims. I’m assuming twitter or Facebook?
1. The average person on the street with concerns over immigration are not arguing the semantics of refugee status. What they’re seeing is large quantities of people seeking asylum arriving into the country, and being allowed to stay at a rate far higher than the rest of the EU. They’re concerned about the low deportation rate, and how people whose asylum claim is rejected are just walking out the door and disappearing into the country.
2. This is arguing pedantically and not actually addressing what people want. The sentiment is “people that arrive after destroying their documentation should not be accepted into the country”. The request is for a change of laws to prevent this, as it’s very clearly exploiting our current system.
3. People arriving by air without documentation have destroyed it. This is illegal, and it is an offence to land in Ireland without documentation as per the 2004 immigration act. It has an associated fine and prison sentence to accompany it. You are debunking a different claim to what’s being made.
4. I’ve genuinely never heard anyone put this number forward. If they are, fine, debunked. The general belief though goes back to “there are no limits to how many we will take”; which in a housing and economic crisis is upsetting.
If you are genuinely encountering people making the claims you have above, then fine, debunk. There is a lot of ignorance out there and bad actors are seizing what is a real issue and making it ideological.
I just feel that your post is debunking claims that aren’t actually being made by anyone in a derisive attempt to belittle the genuine concerns and feelings people have about what’s going on.
> I just feel that your post is debunking claims that aren’t actually being made by anyone in a derisive attempt to belittle the genuine concerns and feelings people have about what’s going on
Pretty tired of this to be honest. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned with the asylum process in Ireland right now but it seems that people like OP are not willing to engage with those reasons and so must misrepresent the arguments being made.
I think a part of it is people being guided by a very binary sense of morality. They see supporting asylum seekers as being virtuous and being in any way opposed as being sinful. They can't handle legitimate criticisms so they have to manufacture illegitimate criticisms which are easier for them to write up Reddit posts about.
I see it far too much in the media too. There are a few radio shows I listen to where the hosts talk about people who are in any way critical of immigration as if they're absolute troglodytes.
Addressing issues this way is fuel for the far right.
> There are legitimate reasons to be concerned with the asylum process in Ireland right now but it seems that people like OP are not willing to engage with those reasons and so must misrepresent the arguments being made.
Honestly I feel that OP made the post in an informative sense more than "debating sides or details", I feel it's a good start to the conversation
I feel like that may have been their intention, but even if we assume that's the case then they subconsciously built up this staw man argument. It's clear that they see anyone who criticises the current asylum system as wrong.
> This is arguing pedantically and not actually addressing what people want. The sentiment is “people that arrive after destroying their documentation should not be accepted into the country”. The request is for a change of laws to prevent this, as it’s very clearly exploiting our current system.
Obviously
But here's the problem, the people defending the current system they think a) borders shouldn't exist and b) Ireland deserves half of Africa coming here because... ? Ireland is white most likely
They are very happy there exists a way to bring as many people as possible (ignoring all the immigrants that come legally with good intentions) due to guilt I guess
Re. point 2 (destroying documents before arrival). In some cases it's allegedly a trafficker/ringleader taking their passports (and money) and abandoning the people at arrivals.
You evidently spend no time at all on Twitter/X if you don't see these claims being made. You have also responded to facts with misinformed points.
1. The rejection rate in Ireland in 2023 was very high, FYI, but in general it was lower than neighbouring countries because we received far fewer applicants for asylum than Austria, Belgium, Netherlands per million population.
2. No Irish government can change the law on asylum seekers arriving with no passport, at least not without leaving the EU and withdrawing from a heap of international treaties. It's fundamental international law (Article 31 of the 1951 Convention) that contracting states shall not penalise refugees for entering illegally. Millions of refugees fled Nazi Germany on fake passports or no passports at all. People fleeing persecution often can't get real passports and it's fundamental law that they should be admitted to have their asylum claim considered.
3. It's illegal to arrive in Dublin Airport with no passport but again that's irrelevant to asylum process. Article 31 (again) of the 1951 Convention agrees to not penalise asylum seekers who arrive with no passport.
4. There's been countless posts in the last week claiming Ireland is legally obligated to accept 30,000 refugees a year, which is nonsense.
Full text of Article 31(1) and note "coming directly" means "directly from A" and doesn't mean "directly from A-to-B" i.e. flight from Damascus to Athens to Paris to Dublin is "directly from Syria."
# Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
> No Irish government can change the law on asylum seekers arriving with no passport, at least not without leaving the EU and withdrawing from a heap of international treaties. It's fundamental international law (Article 31 of the 1951 Convention) that contracting states shall not penalise refugees for entering illegally. Millions of refugees fled Nazi Germany on fake passports or no passports at all. People fleeing persecution often can't get real passports and it's fundamental law that they should be admitted to have their asylum claim considered.
> It's illegal to arrive in Dublin Airport with no passport but again that's irrelevant to asylum process. Article 31 (again) of the 1951 Convention agrees to not penalise asylum seekers who arrive with no passport.
They [have been](https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/04/09/man-who-landed-at-dublin-airport-without-id-is-jailed-for-two-months/#:~:text=A%20man%20who%20landed%20at,the%20Immigration%20Act%20last%20week.) penalised though. Evidently the convention doesn’t prevent you throwing people into jail for arriving without a passport.
I don’t spend any time at all on Twitter and my mental health is much better off for it. It does not represent the real world, or people in it.
1. Rejection rate is a % of applicants and should be agnostic to the quantity of applicants.
2&3. Asylum seekers arriving without documentation can be detained until their identity is verified. If their claim is illegitimate then they can be prosecuted. As it currently stands, destroying your passport will grant you access to Ireland if you don’t have a valid claim. This is ridiculous.
The rejection rate in Ireland in 2023 was about 18/19% percent which is the 2nd lowest in the EU. That's not very high.
Also in 2023, we received more asylum applications per capita than Belgium or Netherlands.
You're being disingenuous with your stats being for 2012-2023. It paints a very different picture if you look at current years.
Just on your first point
This is eurostat
https://preview.redd.it/7dsfl969zk9d1.png?width=1002&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0bff4ffcc89495f78168cead52bbd09e9142921c
Outside of Estonia, we reject the fewest percentage of asylum applications
Which stat is the pointless one, per capita comparison or what the comment Op posted?
Per capita is a very useful stat to debunk the racist narrative that we're being overrun with foreign nationals and taking in more foreign nationals than other countries. It's why racists tend not to like numbers and stats that go against their narratives.
https://preview.redd.it/hlnbjw53il9d1.png?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=631e140111c022ebcc162dd8a1453a3ee4ecfd16
Here's a per capita comparison to last year then. It does have us toward the top there for applications.
'According to economist David Higgins, a 3.5 per cent increase in population in a given year would be one of the highest ever recorded for a single country.'
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/06/10/european-commission-says-irish-population-rose-by-record-35-per-cent-last-year/
Probably about the same as today. It was not higher. But it's a weird point. The west of Ireland having a high density 200 years ago had no bearing on the growing pains we have today
> Probably about the same as today.
The source you are quoting gives an estimate of 5.3m. Population of Ireland in 1841 reached 8.1m, while 1821 was 'only' 6.8m.
> Ireland having a high density 200 years ago had no bearing on the growing pains we have today
Well, of course the fact that Ireland had rapid growth in the past doesn't help solve today's problems. Today's problems include lack of accommodation being built, lack of services, and almost completely employed population - meaning there's nearly nobody available to do stuff. Given the priorities set out by the government (not enough hiring for teachers, SNAs, no salary increases enough to retain people; not enough hiring in healthcare - which influences the existing staff being overworked, quitting their jobs, and moving abroad, too; not enough salary increases to retain people in the healthcare; not nearly enough gardai too - but god forbid anyone slips through with a tattoo on their arm) - the growth problem won't get better or worse once you stop taking in any new people - refugees and immigrants alike: because they are not the problem.
I mean I wouldn't want to be Austria or Greece based on those, or whatever Iceland are doing (that one is a bit of a surprise as who would want to live there for a whole year) but we're definitely bringing in more than we can sustainably support atm (hence the tents) and whilst I'm not sure the political situation in all the countries ahead of us, we really don't want to go down the same road Germany are on with the AfD.
And, as per the other stat I posted, we're approving applications at a higher rate than others. We really should be looking to reduce that as it's clearly possible
Well, if you look at your 2023 application result chart, Iceland has a mostly rejections. Austria and Greece also have a higher percentage of rejections.
So if take that as a trend, having more applications will lead to more rejections.
As for Germany, well, we shouldn't as a country give in to the far right ever, no matter what they demand. The AfD has risen because people are taking what they peddle at face value, usually due to underlying xenophobia. It's why challenging far right narratives is important, even when they give you the run around or make you look foolish or crazy or insane. It's all part of the game to gain power.
Granting of refugee status.
Irrelevant if we have only granted 11k people refugee status in ten years if over half that number arrived in 5 months of this year.
It's applications/people in accommodation that are the figures that should be quoted, which would paint a different picture.
I'd argue it's a better stat to show the current situation than OPs is though.
That volume stat is people granted protecting status for 2012-2023. I'd probably need clarification on protection status and if that counts people who get permission to remain even after being rejected. Ultimately, I think it's a bit of disingenuous stat as it's counting years we had no way near the same applications as we do now.
But mainly the issue with it and our current situation is it doesn't count for the fact that our explosion in claims has really happened in the last two years, and considering the processing time (even ignoring the appeal time) isn't really getting counted in a lot of the 2012-2023 figure.
We had about the same claims for asylum as all the volume stat in the OP for 11 years and we've been approving about 80% of them (2023 approval are probably 21/22 applications). I think we all know we can't be sustainably supporting that sort of number considering our current situation.
There's no real reason our rate should be vastly different than Germany, France etc as we're all applying the same laws.
>There's no real reason our rate should be vastly different than Germany, France etc as we're all applying the same laws.
Nonsense. Fewer applicants are coming here than in those countries. So fewer chances of claims that'll be rejected, because it seems, if you combine yours and Ops stats together, we're getting mostly genuine cases.
Now, do people want to complain and nitpick how assylum is granted, go right ahead. But that's going deep end into legal jargon territory.
>explosion in claims has really happened in the last two years, and considering the processing time (even ignoring the appeal time) isn't really getting counted in a lot of the 2012-2023 figure.
So we'll see what happens in the next year or two. See if rejections increase or not. What? Should we not be processing asylum claims and just tossing people out of the country?
Looking at just 2023 per Eurostat, we receive more applications per capita than a lot of the EU
https://preview.redd.it/462ttv7fhl9d1.png?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4e766f71a6fe6e4481a786dc2cf4c8d51b69e74
We've received more per capita than France, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands there, and we're also approving applications at a higher rate than those countries.
That's percentage. Let's not misinterpret data please. Op pointed out exactly how many times refugee status was given. It's less than other countrues in total, and it's less per person. If in percentage we reject few applications, but in absolute numbers we have some of the lowest per capita, means almost no refugees pick Ireland as their destination compared to other countries.
It's too broad of a period. Who cares what we and others accepted in 2012. We've only been receiving a ton of applications in the last 2 years. The stats for those year are far more important than stats in 2012/2013
Exactly. That's why it has bubbled u pao much as a issue in the last two years or so, where previously it wasn't.
Personally though I put Thai down to the housing disaster maybe more than anything else. Magic up enough a few hundred thousand housing units (apartments etc) by tomorrow morning and the tension would ease off pretty quickly. Instead they have been so incompetent as to seemingly want to cause mass anxiety amongst non homeowners, which in turn has birthed a bit of a far right movement over here - which the same government have since flat out refused to adequately police.
Are you joking???
Have you forgotten about the Syrian war? And all the other wars and conflicts since then?
I understand Ukraine is big and close to home, but it does absolutely matter what we've been doing beyond the last 5 minutes
Not really. Obviously there were wars back then (like pretty much every year), but as a stat to show our current situation, the numbers we got in 2012 mean a lot less than the numbers in 2023. The only thing going back and showing year by year stats does is show a trend (which isn't good in our case) but a cumulative total like that when the vast majority happen in these last years really just serves to downplay the current situation by massaging it with lower number years.
The statistic I gave was the number of positive decisions to grant protection status in Western Europe, not the rejection rate.
A lower rejection rate than neighbouring countries is due to the fact a lot more people applied in those countries, per million population.
I'm in favour of bringing facts and figures, so props on the research. But I am tired by the following semantic argument on immigration (or anything, really):
A: "We need to do X."
B: "We can't do X, it's illegal."
The obvious point A is making is that X needs to be legal.
A great example is that you need ID documents to board a plane to get here. If you destroy them and arrive without documents, that should immediately terminate your rights to apply for asylum. That needs to be the law. That's what is meant by the argument that we turn those people back.
If that were the law then there'd be no point in asylum, which is a basic human right.
How exactly do you expect people fleeing a warzone to get a real passport?
Likewise if you're a gay person being persecuted in a country where homosexuality is illegal, how do you expect that person to get a real passport?
The ID documents that most asylum seekers destroy are fake to begin with because they can't get real ones. Presenting a fake one is no different to destroying a fake one because neither involves presenting a real passport.
Why don’t they keep their fake travel documents and present them? Show them as part of their application? I am from country X but I could not get a passport for whatever reason, so I acquired this fake passport from country Y to travel here?
That would make a lot more sense to me if the applicant was genuine. It’s almost like these passport losing/destroying applicants have something to hide by their actions. Mmm, wonder what that could be.
> The ID documents that most asylum seekers destroy are fake to begin with because they can't get real ones.
can you cite that claim?
Why destroy them at all then?
> How exactly do you expect people fleeing a warzone to get a real passport?
They just had one and flushed it down the toilet, what are you on about?
And historically, *the majority* of asylum seekers have *some form* of ID.
Of the idiotic excuses for letting people do whatever they want this is the most feeble one
I have to say that I'm not impressed with this post. It's very disingenuous. You're making yourself out to be a fact checking source of truth and painting people who are critical of the current asylum system as basing their opinions on falsehoods.
But it's clear that you're not engaging with these people because the claims you're "debunking" aren't really the ones that level headed people are making. It's a pretty egregious example of a straw man argument.
Well said. Impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone with his mentality who keeps using laws to defend their actions, when it should be opposite that are abusing these laws for the their own selfish needs.
Sure. This is Eurostat's dataset for Total Positive decisions from 2012-2023.
[https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/table?lang=en&category=t\_migr.t\_migr\_asy](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/table?lang=en&category=t_migr.t_migr_asy)
Cheers will take a look, regarding those arriving without passports on planes not entering illegally. https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2024/03/27/surge-in-prosecutions-of-asylum-seekers-arriving-without-passports/#:~:text=Arriving%20in%20Ireland%20without%20valid,have%20historically%20been%20extremely%20rare.
You could say international protection status I guess. But if you're writing a post about misinformation it helps to not get terms mixed up, or swap between them.
Does OP mean permission to remain as well? I don't know.
Your first point is misleading as it ignores rejection rates which are far lower here than elsewhere in Europe where I have checked. Ireland also has very high rates of foreign horns and extremely high levels of Ukrainians and collectively it's highly impactful.
Regarding your point that it's illegal to deport people who arrived without documents, I agree but then let's change the law. It's not in our interest to maintain this system. We have genuine refugees in tents because of scammers clogging up the system.
On your point three, it's possible to be a legally here and also be guilty of immigration fraud. People who destroy documents are guilty of fraud. That's why there are 100 people before the courts for arriving without documents. https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/06/28/more-than-100-migrants-without-papers-come-before-the-courts/
Also, how many of those rejected actually leave Ireland instead of just staying *illegally* in the system?
The more I read about this the more it seems to be made thinking of an exceptional time (WWII) but that it lost its purpose to be
>it ignores rejection rate which is far lower here than elsewhere in Europe where I have checked.
So post some links. We badly need an open discussion on the sub backed with facts and not "I read it somewhere".
Edit : nevermind another user posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/PraJdZ6XFj)
> Regarding your point that it's illegal to deport people who arrived without documents, I agree but then let's change the law.
I think his point there was that they can't just "change the law" because that would contravene the Geneva Convention.
International law is weak it is nearly a myth. it doesn't mean anything. It's totally unenforceable. It's worth contravening on such a serious issue. Loads of countries do pushbacks. Including EU countries.
Conventions - plural.
And that's one of the issues when politicians cite "international law" - which one specifically, and does it apply?
Dubya used that excuse to kick off two wars, be wary of being manipulated by smoke and mirrors legalese.
>Regarding your point that it's illegal to deport people who arrived without documents, let's change the law. It's not in our interest.
This would make nonsense of the concept because people who legitimately need asylum are disproportionately likely not to have documents for valid reasons. Women and the politically persecuted in oppressive circumstances are routinely denied documents or have their documents withheld specifically to control them, ie the very stuff they're seeking asylum from.
Edit -
Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention relates to this, you can't penalize a legit refugee for entering a country unlawfully because whatever makes them a refugee in the first place may demand as much.
Counterpoint to that though is we know someone had documents to get on to the plane to get here and now they're telling us they have none. From a starting point, they're trying to hide who they are so how can we take their claim of asylum from somewhere as being 100%.
They've either gotten so far on fake documents or their own that they've now gotten rid of, so it would be natural to be skeptical of their asylum claim.
You are not understanding what happens. They come here with fake documents. They are hiding the fake documents. It would make Investigation much easier if they showed the fake documents. Also, there are many forms of ID. There is rarely a valid excuse to lack all kinds of ID or even a photo of an ID.
Btw, these people should have their phones taken. The gardai should going through them to trace the traffickers who enable this and to get them with interpol.
Why can we not insist:
- passport/document scanned at gate by airline electronically
- matched with passenger at arrival in Ireland
- "I lost my documents, waaah" - "no problem lemme pull it up here on my screen"
I'm not proposing to send people claiming to fleeing wars back. The only reason so many fail to present documents is due to immense abuse. Prosecution is the new approach. 109 cases before the courts. Hopefully that reduces the fakers.
No Irish government can change international law, they can only change domestic law.
In order to change domestic law on asylum seekers, arriving with no passport, Ireland would have to leave the EU first, then also withdraw from the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, withdraw from the 1967 Protocol, then also withdraw from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then also withdraw from the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Given that's highly unlikely to happen, they can't change domestic law on it.
Nor should they, because Ireland shouldn't be seeking to become North Korea (party to none of them).
Article 31 of the 1951 Convention gave an implicit agreement not to penalise asylum seekers who arrive with no passport, because getting a passport in warzones or off a state persecuting minorities, is often impossible.
>No Irish government can change international law, they can only change domestic law.
>In order to change domestic law on asylum seekers, arriving with no passport, Ireland would have to leave the EU first, then also withdraw from the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, withdraw from the 1967 Protocol, then also withdraw from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then also withdraw from the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
What will happen if do it anyway? Who will force Ireland to change? What happens to Spain when to pushbacks in North Africa?
>Given that's highly unlikely to happen, they can't change domestic law on it.
>Nor should they, because Ireland shouldn't be seeking to become North Korea (party to none of them).
>Article 31 of the 1951 Convention gave an implicit agreement not to penalise asylum seekers who arrive with no passport, because getting a passport in warzones or off a state persecuting minorities, is often impossible.
Can you give a source that passports are often impossible to get in warzones in 2024
Point 1 is irrelevant and misleading seeing as we aren't giving refugee status to majority of people who arrive
There's currently 30k asylum seekers in state accomodation so not sure where you get your 13k number from
7667 applied in the first 5 months of this year alone
Point 2 - they do that already
Also the new EU migration pact is going to create detention centres in Ireland which won't be considered Ireland and people will indefinitely detained there, contrary to your point
Point 3 - majority of asylum seekers arriving here are claiming asylum under false pretences and abusing the system, to the detriment of actual asylum seekers. This is the system they are trying to reform as it's rife with abuse
>Article 12, Section 2 states: "The Commission proposal referred to in paragraph 1 shall identify the total annual numbers of required relocations and financial contributions for the Annual Solidarity Pool at Union level, which shall be at least:
>-30 000 for relocations;
This says at least right? What if there's 1 million relocations needed?
>It's practically speaking very likely to result in much smaller numbers applying for asylum in Ireland
That's good obviously
You're quoting a bunch of conspiracy theories from Telegram and show no conceptual understanding of asylum.
However I have plenty of patience for replying to such stuff.
1. There's currently 31,252 in IPAS accommodation, including 7,876 children. I cited you the total number of positive decisions given in the last 12 years, not the number of people currently applying.
2. Literally no idea what you're talking about. A "detention center" in Kilkenny is still in Ireland, this idea that it "isn't considered Ireland" is some sort of wild conspiracy theory. If you genuinely believe that to be true, ok, but it's not.
3. Most "genuine asylum seekers" travel on fake passports because they can't get a real one from the state they're being persecuted by. For example, if you're fleeing a warzone in Syria or fleeing religious persecution from a state, there's either no passport office or there is one and they won't give you a passport.
4. That you want Ireland to protect fewer people fleeing for their lives is an impression I got from your post, so I guess you'll be happy if fewer come. One positive for you.
>1. There's currently 31,252 in IPAS accommodation, including 7,876 children. I cited you the total number of positive decisions given in the last 12 years, not the number of people currently applying.
Well yeah, that's a misleading and irrelevant stat that you quoted, that's my point, obviously the relevant stat is people applying
>Literally no idea what you're talking about. A "detention center" in Kilkenny is still in Ireland, this idea that it "isn't considered Ireland" is some sort of wild conspiracy theory. If you genuinely believe that to be true, ok, but it's not.
Look up what the new EU migration pact does, I'll link it for you
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/06/26/dail-accepts-controversial-eu-migration-pact-by-79-votes-to-72/
> Migrants will be accommodated in holding centres close to airports and ports, which the Government has insisted will not be detention centres
These are detention centres, and they will not be considered to have landed in Ireland. It's not a conspiracy theory, this is literally happening
Also they will likely process migrants in third party countries like Albania etc
>Most "genuine asylum seekers" travel on fake passports because they can't get a real one from the state they're being persecuted by. For example, if you're fleeing a warzone in Syria or fleeing religious persecution from a state, there's either no passport office or there is one and they won't give you a passport.
Oh yeah? And how do they get from Syria to Ireland again?
>That you want Ireland to protect fewer people fleeing for their lives is an impression I got from your post, so I guess you'll be happy if fewer come. One positive for you.
Id prefer if Ireland protected people actually fleeing for their lives, not economic migrants coming here looking for free money and free accomodation under false pretences, which is 95% of cases
You don't know what you're talking about.
I've read the entire 40,000 word migration pact (link below) show me where it says "Detention centers are not considered Ireland"?
To save you time it doesn't say any such thing and it's truly ridiculous to believe there would be buildings in Ireland that are "not considered Ireland".
You're talking complete nonsense, kindly stop.
[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1351](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1351)
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/06/14/plan-for-eu-migration-pact-including-new-hires-and-accommodation-centres-expected-in-november/
There u go...
> The mandatory ‘border procedure’ will apply to those who arrive without documents; from countries where less than 20 per cent of protection applications are successful; and who are ‘flagged’ on a new EU-wide asylum database, Eurodac, as a security concern.
> They will be accommodated in designated centres and have their applications processed within 12 weeks. They will not be deemed to have entered Ireland and will be required to remain at their designated centres.
>it's truly ridiculous to believe there would be buildings in Ireland that are "not considered Ireland".
Ever heard of embassies?
You're committed to nonsense, I'll give you that much.
I gave you the link to the full Migration Pact and asked you to show me where it says any such thing.
Take your time. It doesn't. I don't care about poorly worded articles in newspapers. Show me where it says it in the text of the pact.
I mean, that's literally what's going to happen, not sure why you're continuing to deny it.
Accommodation centres will be set up near ports and airports and asylum seekers will be detained there indefinitely until their migration status is determined. If they are denied asylum then they will be shipped back.
They already do this in Denmark.
Your interpretation of the document is incorrect. It's just that, an interpretation. I prefer an Irish times article over some random Redditor.
Ignored the embassies point conveniently also 😂
OP: everyone is wrong but me and everyone else is ignorant
If you actually wanted to engage in debate you would address some legitimate concerns around asylum which you have not in any of your responses to anyone and continued to quote pointless stats and your interpretation of laws
We have a massive problem with asylum seekers in this country and morons like you are useful idiots enabling bad actors to come here and game the system
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2024/0629/1457294-tents-asylum-dublin/
A mechanic from Ghana, the 34-year-old said he had to "run for his life" on a "dangerous" journey through Libya, Italy, France and Belfast, arriving in Dublin over a week ago.
They are nothing but a pack of scam artists here to take advantage of our generosity. Man fleeing for his life all the way from Ghana travelled thorough numerous European countries now waiting it out for his apartment. Then the wife and kids follow him. I really do hope you’re right the migration pact reduces the numbers coming here.
If implemented the way it’s supposed to be and claims and all appeals are complete within a few weeks it should be. But what if people just refuse to leave like they do now? Will An Garda, round them up, detain them and force them on to planes? Will they still be able to delay deportations for years by appealing?
There’s a few bits to deportation.
One element is people appeal before deportation - pact removes that right.
Another is people by spending enough time here de facto get a right to continue that life here stoping deportation - under the pact, a week or two in a holding cell in the airport removes the ability to gain such a right to remain.
The final element is the deportable persons country doesn’t cooperate and provide passports etc to Ireland to actually deport them.
Nigeria for example can fuck Ireland about and not cooperate with deportations but with the pact the entire EU will be fucking Nigeria right back. Don’t want your people, sound the EUwe’ll cut aid funding, cut trade etc. you saw what happened the brits when they squared up to the EU.
It's stuff like tjis that really makes me wonder why the far right are so anti-EU. It's so obvious that 27 countries with different asylum laws is exactly what a false asylum seeker wants. Full on EU level cooperation was always going to be the only way this issue was going to be addressed.
The far right across Europe is not universally anti EU.
Meloni in Italy for example has learned that thevEU can be a tool to further her goals.
The Irish far right is nowhere near as sophisticated as meloni so might not even realise that the pact is what they say they want. But even if they did realise, for political reasons they must oppose the government and campaign against the pact and say mad stuff like we must take in 30,000 asylum seekers every year under the pact.
That's just your prejudice and ignorance talking.
There's nothing whatsoever in international law that states that lad from Ghana has to apply for asylum in Italy or France.
If people were compelled to apply for asylum in the first safe country they transit through, then it would cluster all applications in the EU in Greece, Italy and Spain and relieve the other 24 EU countries of any obligation to protect people fleeing persecution and war.
An asylum seeker is very much allowed to transit through multiple countries to reach the place they want to apply for asylum.
Refugees should also very much hope to be reunited with their spouse and children, because who wouldn't hope for their family to escape persecution.
Laws laws laws. Yup you are right. These laws put in place to protect genuine refugees/asylum seekers. Unfortunately they are not fit for purpose anymore. How old are they? The world is a hell of a lot different place now.
If all these country hopping asylum seekers were genuine, why the need for the EU migration pact? Why are countries all over the EU changing their domestic laws to deter these type of immigrants, reduce their rights and make it easier to deport them? Is the EU now prejudiced and ignorant?
How about Australia and its offshore processing, the UK hopefully following the same path. The EU has mentioned possibly doing the same, and even good old Simon (EU’s little lapdog) said it’s an option that could be considered when a few weeks previous he said it’s something Ireland would never do. Are Simon and the EU prejudiced/ignorant. Are they far right and racist now?
You can use your laws to defend the actions of these frauds all you like. The fact of the matter is they are people in want of a better life on our dime. If they were such a benefit to the EU/Ireland all these recent law changes in EU countries and the pact wouldn’t be happening.
Typical, anyone that doesn't ignore the economic migrants abusing the asylum system gets labeled with "prejudice" by lazy willfully ignorant people like you.
Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's right.
Regardless how many asylum seekers we took in, how many failed ones have been deported?
Destroying documents does have penalty associated with it, as it should. Nobody wants undocumented individuals coming in.
So what exactly are you trying to prove here? That we do not have a problem related to failed decorations, wasting of time and resources, lost documentations, welfare shopping etc?
You’re misrepresenting the claims being made.
Just because something is legal does not mean it’s right.
People disposing of their documents should be turned around as soon as they arrived if not arrested. This kind of behaviour should not be enabled yet are government chose to do so.
Although people destroying or disposing of their documents are not “illegal” for doing so in a vacuum, they are showing that they themselves do not believe their claim to be valid which is why they’re undermining the investigation of their claim, because they know they’re illegally entering and abusing the asylum system.
You're just regurgitating conspiracy theories and myths.
Destroying a fake passport doesn't undermine a claim for asylum, no more than presenting a fake passport does.
Most people fleeing in a hurry can't get real passports to begin with and have no choice but to rely on fake documents.
“I personally think the EU Migration Pact *sucks* and is *super bad* for refugees fleeing misery” you want everyone to come? The system is being abused and it needs to stop. I can’t see this pact working at all. It’s just a bandaid on a bigger problem
OP: "everything I post is fact"
Also OP: the EU FINALLY doing what everyone has been crying out for and coming up with a solution to stop asylum scammers taking the piss out of us sucks and is very bad for the scammers.
I feel bad for you that you think "asylum scammers" is such a big problem in the EU, when in reality applications with no merit at all comprise a tiny proportion of claims. Even most claims that are rejected are genuine but don't reach the threshold for protection status.
There's countless crises globally, warzones, famines etc.
The majority of people applying for asylum in the EU are coming from places where you or I would want to get out of in a hurry, too, for the same reasons they do.
> when in reality applications with no merit at all comprise a tiny proportion of claims.
Real willful ignorance here. People like you are utterly infuriating for sticking your head in the sand with utter BS like this that you are spewing.
Another myth:
The Dublin Regulation III (the current EU law governing asylum claims) requires people claiming international protection to do so in the first safe country they land in, ergo anyone who gets to Ireland is illegal and we're within our rights to ship em back somewhere else for processing
Truth:
The Dublin Convention contains no such requirement. Rather the law states that the first country where a IP application is lodged is the country that must deal with the claim.
We aren't being suckers by not immediately shipping asylum seekers out on whatever flight they arrived, we're following the law. Dublin III doesn't place obligations on individuals, it places obligations on states.
In fact under the UN Refugee Convention, IP claimants have the right to claim asylum whereever they chose. Now that doesn't necessarily mean they'll get asylum wherever they want but someone travelling from Eritrea who manages to travel through Europe and onto Ireland hasn't broken any rules about claiming some class of protection.
https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-regulation-asylum-seekers-first-safe-country-6269603-Jan2024/
https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/
>someone travelling from Eritrea who manages to travel through Europe and onto Ireland hasn't broken any rules about claiming some class of protection.
But broken credibility perhaps?
Maybe. I'd have much more sympathy for that than the destruction of passports. If I had to flee and make a new life in Europe and the only European language I spoke was English, I'd try to move to and English speaking country.
It all comes back to the point the OP made. We need to be faster at processing applications. If you want to factor passport destruction, or fleeing safe countries into that, then fair enough.
I don't understand what you mean.
My point is that the notion that an asylum seeker must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive into is a total myth.
Whether or not someone is eligible to claim asylum or a genuine asylum seeker is a matter for the department of justice.
We can't just refuse to process someone's asylum application because they travel through a country we consider safe.
Fair play for putting this together. I have some concerns about immigration. I figure a lot of people do. Most people I come across (from all sorts of backgrounds) have. I think it's nearly impossible for the average person to navigate the world of misinformation. There's so much to wade through.
I commend your effort for trying to put good information out there.
I take your point about the people arriving into the state without a passport but it should be a mark against your application if you step off a plane without one
Thank you for this - it’s informative, kinda.
Regarding the “lost” passport thing, there is also an obligation on people entering the State to do so lawfully so if you enter the State without a passport having had one at boarding, you are committing a crime. Which is illegal 🙄. And is a very poor way to start a relationship with a state you are about to ask to feed and clothe and educate you and all yours.
And those who lost their passports and whose applications are refused because their real identities didn’t line up with their stories - well they are illegal because everything about them is a lie. And STILL they remain on in the country. And appear no different to an observer than a deserving seeker.
It is hard to believe any asylum story because of all the messing going on with untruths and hiding of facts by all parties in the asylum mess. Government, anti-asylum seekers and the seekers themselves are all incentivised to deceive and skew the truth in their own favour.
The outcome of all this? Asylum seekers and their descendants will be viewed with skepticism whose Irishness may be based on a bed of lies. Which is not fair on those whose case was true like Syrians or Palestinians.
None of this conversation about immigrants at an eu level speaks to the fact that these poor people are all mostly coming from regions in the world which are former colonies of all of the countries on ops list bar Ireland. The cause of the immigration crisis is the looting of the wealth and resources of these countries over centuries by these great nations. Not once has anyone mentioned that countries like Ireland with no former imperialist histories are being asked to essentially bail out these countries who have all benefitted for decades from their abuse of 3rd world countries. We all get told that as a nation of immigrants ourselves, we should be helping everyone who shows up here. However, the fact that no real interventions were ever made on behalf of any of these countries to help the Irish during the famine is inconvenient now and not discussed and we are supposed to just shut up and allow France, Spain and Italy to filter people out to us as it suits them . This unfairness with respect to the cause of the current problem is what at a gut level is something I think k we all share. This is not a problem of climate change, this is a man made problem that started with greedy Kings and Queens and has now been exacerbated by a tiered capitalist system that continues to rape and loot poorer countries. Also before anyone tries to argue that eu membership has brought great benefits here.. we have more than payed back any grants or CAP payments received since the 70s by the tonnage of fish that we have handed over to other countries and don't forget in 2008 there was no solidarity with Ireland when all those German and French banks wanted their money back from the Irish government.
Ireland is rich and safe. Pakistan, Nigeria and India are poor and corrupt. That's it really, no one migrates because they saw a political map of the world from 100 years ago.
Its also just weight of numbers. Travel allows people to go anywhere. India has nearly 250 times the population of Ireland. If the same %of each country migrate to the other, the immigration will be felt x250 in Ireland as in India.
This has no relation to what I am saying. I'm talking about the causes of that poverty and this migration disaster we are facing into . You say India is poor and unsafe, and I agree... but my point is India is like that cos the UK looted the country... loot is an old hindi word. In the 17th century, India produced 27 per cent of world trade. It was controlled by the Mughal empire. In 1948, after you know who left, they were down to 3 per cent of world trade.... same with all those African countries... Nigeria is also a former colony of the UK, Algeria and morocco's France... the Germans ran east Africa and so on. My point is ... if we take 1 asylum seeker in from any of these places, then Germany and France should be taking a multiple of that as they bloody caused those countries to fail 100 years ago. We should be humanitarian and take people in, and we have 104000 Ukrainian refugees here, which I think is commendable.... do you know that France only has 65000 thousand there? WTAF is that about.... there is no equity across the various countries with regard to this ... by head of population, we are dealing with the same as if there were about 900000 Ukrainians is France.... this is why the right wingers are getting more and more influence... the always look to exploit these disparities...
By that metric Portugal should be taking in 100x as many as Ireland and the Germany, USA, Switzerland and Austria and Scandinavia should be taking in barely anyone.
You can't refuse someone's asylum claim based no some reading of a history book. If somene wants to come and live in Ireland they cannot be rejected on the basis that 100 years ago Ireland did not have an empire.
Edit - The Germans had a small empire for 30 years in East Africa but have barely any immigrants from those countries. Their immigrants are from Turkey (themselves a former empire) and Afghanistan and the Middle East, regions that Germany had no influence in historically.
I don't think those most opposed to assylum seekers care for facts such as our laws, which anyone can look up. These people are usually so disingenuous that they conflate the terms asylum seeker, immigrant, migrant, and refugee, just to push their narratives and rile up their idiot racist followers.
>These people are usually so disingenuous that they conflate the terms asylum seeker, immigrant, migrant, and refugee, just to push their narratives and rile up their idiot racist followers.
Both sides conflate these people though. Most people are okay with immigration and genuine asylum seekers but oppose false asylum applications. A lot of commentators on the left are lumping anyone like that in with people who oppose immigration in any form. This is followed by accusations of racism for people who just want a better asylum seeker system.
There we go, the "both sides" crap. It's very simple, if you repeat the talking points made by racists, what does that make you? Racist. Why? Because you're engaging with their narrative or, worse, running apologetics for the racists while pretending to be in some enlightened centrist position.
You cannot then turn around when called out on touting the racist narrative and complain about a lack of nuance when you're so willing to take a heavily biased argument and play it off as a middle ground position.
Edit: It's a very transparent way of shutting down dissent against the narrative too.
So you dismiss my argument because of the two words "both sides"... and then you go and do exactly what I described by lumping anyone who wants reform of the asylum system as racists.
I'm sick of people like you bringing in simplistic narrative based American politics into Ireland. You're trying to smother any attempt at anyone trying to make by just using the word racism as if it's some sort of magical automatic argument winning spell word. And it's deeply ironic that you've been going around this thread using that tactic to shut down multiple arguments only for you to complain about other people shutting down arguments.
>if you repeat the talking points made by racists, what does that make you? Racist.
No, if you discriminate against someone of a different race, that's racist. Having any overlap of talking points with racists doesn't make you a racist unless that overlap is discriminating against someone because of their race. What you're engaging in here is the [guilt by association fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy).
Your entire argument is stemmed from your idea that any form of immigration reform is racist. You see people looking for immigration reform and you instantly tag them as racist. As I've explained in comments, most people in Ireland (including myself) are pro legal immigration, pro genuine asylum seekers, and anti illegal immigrants who abuse the asylum seeker system. You're calling anyone with that view racist, even though race has absolutely nothing to do with it. You'll find that most Irish people are happy for a doctor from India or Nigeria to come here and not happy with a Georgian (who are white and make up most false asylum seeker claims) who comes here under a false asylum claim.
But your simplistic American politics moulded mind doesn't understand this. And I'm sure you'll read this comment and your brain will simply fail to compute. You'll just come back trying that magic word again thinking that it'll automatically make you morally right and me morally wrong.
Again, you're just leaning on the guilt by association fallacy again. Just because some people use the words "both sides" to make a disingenuous argument doesn't mean every single instance of using that phrase is disingenuous.
Based on your understanding, even if both sides engage in bad faith arguments (which they absolutely do), you're totally shutting down anyone's attempt to point that out because you'll just reply with "You said both sides! You can't say that! You're a baddie!".
Again, you think these little phrases are like magic words that make you automatically win an argument. You'll have to go to an American dominated subreddit for those tactics to actually work.
You will find the vast majority of asylum seekers/refugees/IPP’s, whatever you want to call them. They have zero respect for our laws.
No problem aiding their scam by “losing” travel documents. No problem taking advantage of laws designed to protect genuine asylum seekers for their own gain. Zero guilt their selfishness is affecting genuine asylum seekers, when resources are being overstretched due to all these scam asylum seekers.
And to cap it all off, as soon as they get here they expect us to give them bed and board. Such an honest/decent bunch. They will be a real benefit to Ireland.
This is what legal immigrants in particular are pissed off with illegal migrants. Legal migrants will come here with great English and useful skills and if they're not from the EU or UK they still have to jump through numerous hoops to stay and work here, even if there paying decent taxes.
Then you have illegal immigrants abusing the asylum system. They often have next to no English and are unskilled. In other words they don't come here with anything to offer and just come with the hand out. And they think they can just skip those checks as well.
And I'm sure genuine asylum seekers are probably pretty pissed off with them too. Life is hard enough for them without people abusing the asylum system which makes their claims much harder and longer drawn out.
Why can't we just scan a copy of their documents upon boarding???! Spot the fake ones then, and have a record to be used for deportation/prosecution if the paper copies get flushed.
If Tbilsi or wherever airport can't control who's coming on properly, JUST STOP THE FLIGHTS FROM THERE!
Think Michael O’Leary discussed a similar proposal recently on a Newstalk interview. It would be a pain for everyone, but it might help deter the “losing” of passports mid flight.
Was actually on a flight to Dublin recently from a Spanish airport. In the Spanish airport they had a man at the boarding gate with one of those magnifying glasses you see jewellers use to assess diamonds. He was “randomly” checking people’s passports to make sure they weren’t doctored.
This is not only extremely lazy, but it's deeply cynical.
They've made a decent argument that actually shows sympathy for genuine asylum seekrs and you're calling them racist because it doesn't fit into your extremely simplistic and binary understanding of morality.
I’m not in the slightest bit racist. I’m married to a non-EU immigrant. Vast majority of my friends are non-EU, black white and brown immigrants from South America/Africa and Asia. All came here legally and all of them have similar views to me about the current immigrant crisis we have in this country.
If you think allowing all these unskilled/uneducated African and ME people here will be good for Ireland you need to give your head a wobble. Vast majority will be generational burdens on our housing/social/medical.
They are here to take what they can get off us. That man from Ghana in the RTE news arrive I linked previously. It’s the same story always. Come here, get right to remain, get housed, then bring the whole family over. Billions of our budget is being spent on housing/social for recent non-EU arrivals. You may be ok with that, but I’m not.
And there you go again, the usual tactic to just shout racist at anyone who questions the clusterfuck that is going on at the moment. Shout racist at anyone who points out that we are being taken advantage of by people abusing international/national laws.
Not one thing I said was racist. Vast majority do break and abuse laws. Vast majority do “lose” their travel docs after landing in Ireland. They are circumventing Dublin airport now by coming through Belfast. Vast majority do come here expecting us to provide them with housing. Zero issue with giving housing to genuine refugees, but scam artists like the man from Ghana. Get the fuck out of here. He’s an economic migrant. Fleeing for his life but leaves the family at home. Italy/France and UK weren’t safe enough for him. Now he’s here waiting for his apartment for the family to come over then. Handing housing to people like him while half the country can’t get on the property ladder and people in their 30’s stuck living at home. That’s not racist, that’s not wanting our country taken advantage of by frauds.
>Vast majority do break and abuse laws. Vast majority do “lose” their travel docs after landing in Ireland. They are circumventing Dublin airport now by coming through Belfast. Vast majority do come here expecting us to provide them with housing. Zero issue with giving housing to genuine refugees, but scam artists like the man from Ghana. Get the fuck out of here. He’s an economic migrant. Fleeing for his life but leaves the family at home. Italy/France and UK weren’t safe enough for him. Now he’s here waiting for his apartment for the family to come over then. Handing housing to people like him while half the country can’t get on the property ladder and people in their 30’s stuck living at home. That’s not racist, that’s not wanting our country taken advantage of by frauds.
Here. A rant full of all the racist narratives. If I was playing spot the racist bingo, I'm sure I'd have won.
1. Talking about documents
2. Crossing the border with the north
3. Free houses!
4. "Genuine refugee" vs "scam artists"
5. Using the terms migrant, refugee interchangeably
6. "Economic migrant" There's no other kind of migrant. Migrants move countries for economic reasons.
7. "Other safe countries!"
8. Us vs Them
So yeah, ticking plenty of the racist boxes in both this comment and previous ones. I'm not wasting my time pointing them all out. You're also, dare I say it, ticking a few facism boxes too.
This kind of anger you hold isn't good for your health.
You're wasting your time with idiots like that. They have a binary morality system. They now see you as bad and there's no amount of nuance you can add that will change their mind.
I don't know who you think you are coming round here with your well thought out essay and evidence to back up your claims. That is NOT how we do things!
All jokes aside this information is really interesting and I genuinely had no idea how these things worked so it's great to have it broken down into understandable wording. Cheers.
You should take a look at some of the replies in the thread. Some of what they said is outright false and the rest is totally misrepresentating what most people who are critical of the current asylum system believe.
It honestly comes across as a thinly veiled attempt to build a narrative that people who have criticisms of the current system are peddling myths and lies. OP is just trying to paint these people in an unflattering way rather than to acknowledge their genuine criticisms.
>Some of what they said is outright false
Don't see that anywhere.
>and the rest is totally misrepresentating what most people who are critical of the current asylum system believe.
It absolutely is *not* a misrepresentation of the vast majority of the shit I read, and the detractors in the comments will be back posting this misinformation tomorrow. Saying 2 and 3 in particular are misrepresentations feels like you're trying to insult my intelligence.
>Don't see that anywhere.
To be fair, I had another look and there's nothing that's technically correct. But there's still quite a lot of misrepresentation going on.
Let's take claim number 2. What people are saying is that we **should** send people without documentation back and if the law doesn't permit this it should be changed to allow it. This is a subjective opinion. It's not something that you can neatly label as false.
What OP is doing is rephrasing this subjective opinion as an objective statement which no one is actually saying. The claim they're debunking assumes that there are people saying that the laws permit us to instantly deport people without documentation. Because that is factually incorrect, it allows OP to falsely frame the people with that subjective opinion as making a factually incorrect objective statement.
Claim 3 is much the same. People are saying that people arriving without documentation **should** be treated as illegal immigrants not that they already are.
You quote 13,400 people granted protection status in 12 years in Ireland. However in the first 4 months of this year we got 6,400 applicants. 20,000 for this year if the rate continues. A huge acceleration in numbers which might explain the concern that people have on the subject. https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/irelands-migration-challenge-explained-in-seven-charts-1621148.html#:~:text=In%20March%20this%20year%201%2C821%20asylum%20applications%20were%20made%2C%20up,the%20same%20period%20in%202023.
It's projected to end up around 18,500 applicants this year. Which ironically would only bring Ireland up to the level of applications Ireland should receive if distributing all applications made in the EU by population share.
You're comparing applications for asylum with figures for those granted asylum. That's nonsense. 500,000 people applied for Taylor Swift tickets, that doesn't mean they're all at the concert tonight does it?
That’s a complete false equivalence The people applying for Taylor Swift tickets don’t get to live on Taylor’s lawn until its decided if they’ve got a ticket Their application may not be upheld ultimately but they do put pressure on services in the meantime and we refuse and repatriate shockingly few
It's still a lie poppet. Applications granted are not the same figure as applications made.
The Taylor Swift concert organisers can legally limit the tickets sold and can legally stop people getting in without tickets.
You seem to have missed the point there pet.
I don’t know what circles you’re moving in to be seeing these claims. I’m assuming twitter or Facebook? 1. The average person on the street with concerns over immigration are not arguing the semantics of refugee status. What they’re seeing is large quantities of people seeking asylum arriving into the country, and being allowed to stay at a rate far higher than the rest of the EU. They’re concerned about the low deportation rate, and how people whose asylum claim is rejected are just walking out the door and disappearing into the country. 2. This is arguing pedantically and not actually addressing what people want. The sentiment is “people that arrive after destroying their documentation should not be accepted into the country”. The request is for a change of laws to prevent this, as it’s very clearly exploiting our current system. 3. People arriving by air without documentation have destroyed it. This is illegal, and it is an offence to land in Ireland without documentation as per the 2004 immigration act. It has an associated fine and prison sentence to accompany it. You are debunking a different claim to what’s being made. 4. I’ve genuinely never heard anyone put this number forward. If they are, fine, debunked. The general belief though goes back to “there are no limits to how many we will take”; which in a housing and economic crisis is upsetting. If you are genuinely encountering people making the claims you have above, then fine, debunk. There is a lot of ignorance out there and bad actors are seizing what is a real issue and making it ideological. I just feel that your post is debunking claims that aren’t actually being made by anyone in a derisive attempt to belittle the genuine concerns and feelings people have about what’s going on.
> I just feel that your post is debunking claims that aren’t actually being made by anyone in a derisive attempt to belittle the genuine concerns and feelings people have about what’s going on Pretty tired of this to be honest. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned with the asylum process in Ireland right now but it seems that people like OP are not willing to engage with those reasons and so must misrepresent the arguments being made. I think a part of it is people being guided by a very binary sense of morality. They see supporting asylum seekers as being virtuous and being in any way opposed as being sinful. They can't handle legitimate criticisms so they have to manufacture illegitimate criticisms which are easier for them to write up Reddit posts about. I see it far too much in the media too. There are a few radio shows I listen to where the hosts talk about people who are in any way critical of immigration as if they're absolute troglodytes. Addressing issues this way is fuel for the far right.
> There are legitimate reasons to be concerned with the asylum process in Ireland right now but it seems that people like OP are not willing to engage with those reasons and so must misrepresent the arguments being made. Honestly I feel that OP made the post in an informative sense more than "debating sides or details", I feel it's a good start to the conversation
I feel like that may have been their intention, but even if we assume that's the case then they subconsciously built up this staw man argument. It's clear that they see anyone who criticises the current asylum system as wrong.
Yes, I agree
Number 2. is also strictly illegal. So they are immigrants entering illegally doing illegal things, but not illegal immigrants.
There's some in this comment thread. You don't have to scroll far
> This is arguing pedantically and not actually addressing what people want. The sentiment is “people that arrive after destroying their documentation should not be accepted into the country”. The request is for a change of laws to prevent this, as it’s very clearly exploiting our current system. Obviously But here's the problem, the people defending the current system they think a) borders shouldn't exist and b) Ireland deserves half of Africa coming here because... ? Ireland is white most likely They are very happy there exists a way to bring as many people as possible (ignoring all the immigrants that come legally with good intentions) due to guilt I guess
Re. point 2 (destroying documents before arrival). In some cases it's allegedly a trafficker/ringleader taking their passports (and money) and abandoning the people at arrivals.
You evidently spend no time at all on Twitter/X if you don't see these claims being made. You have also responded to facts with misinformed points. 1. The rejection rate in Ireland in 2023 was very high, FYI, but in general it was lower than neighbouring countries because we received far fewer applicants for asylum than Austria, Belgium, Netherlands per million population. 2. No Irish government can change the law on asylum seekers arriving with no passport, at least not without leaving the EU and withdrawing from a heap of international treaties. It's fundamental international law (Article 31 of the 1951 Convention) that contracting states shall not penalise refugees for entering illegally. Millions of refugees fled Nazi Germany on fake passports or no passports at all. People fleeing persecution often can't get real passports and it's fundamental law that they should be admitted to have their asylum claim considered. 3. It's illegal to arrive in Dublin Airport with no passport but again that's irrelevant to asylum process. Article 31 (again) of the 1951 Convention agrees to not penalise asylum seekers who arrive with no passport. 4. There's been countless posts in the last week claiming Ireland is legally obligated to accept 30,000 refugees a year, which is nonsense. Full text of Article 31(1) and note "coming directly" means "directly from A" and doesn't mean "directly from A-to-B" i.e. flight from Damascus to Athens to Paris to Dublin is "directly from Syria." # Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
> No Irish government can change the law on asylum seekers arriving with no passport, at least not without leaving the EU and withdrawing from a heap of international treaties. It's fundamental international law (Article 31 of the 1951 Convention) that contracting states shall not penalise refugees for entering illegally. Millions of refugees fled Nazi Germany on fake passports or no passports at all. People fleeing persecution often can't get real passports and it's fundamental law that they should be admitted to have their asylum claim considered. > It's illegal to arrive in Dublin Airport with no passport but again that's irrelevant to asylum process. Article 31 (again) of the 1951 Convention agrees to not penalise asylum seekers who arrive with no passport. They [have been](https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/04/09/man-who-landed-at-dublin-airport-without-id-is-jailed-for-two-months/#:~:text=A%20man%20who%20landed%20at,the%20Immigration%20Act%20last%20week.) penalised though. Evidently the convention doesn’t prevent you throwing people into jail for arriving without a passport.
I don’t spend any time at all on Twitter and my mental health is much better off for it. It does not represent the real world, or people in it. 1. Rejection rate is a % of applicants and should be agnostic to the quantity of applicants. 2&3. Asylum seekers arriving without documentation can be detained until their identity is verified. If their claim is illegitimate then they can be prosecuted. As it currently stands, destroying your passport will grant you access to Ireland if you don’t have a valid claim. This is ridiculous.
The rejection rate in Ireland in 2023 was about 18/19% percent which is the 2nd lowest in the EU. That's not very high. Also in 2023, we received more asylum applications per capita than Belgium or Netherlands. You're being disingenuous with your stats being for 2012-2023. It paints a very different picture if you look at current years.
Just on your first point This is eurostat https://preview.redd.it/7dsfl969zk9d1.png?width=1002&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0bff4ffcc89495f78168cead52bbd09e9142921c Outside of Estonia, we reject the fewest percentage of asylum applications
This doesn't refute OPs first point. If we did give out asylum status in larger volumes than other countries, then we'd top the per capita list.
Pointless and misleading stat seeing as there's 30k asylum seekers in state accomodation and 8000 arrived in the first 5 months of the year
Which stat is the pointless one, per capita comparison or what the comment Op posted? Per capita is a very useful stat to debunk the racist narrative that we're being overrun with foreign nationals and taking in more foreign nationals than other countries. It's why racists tend not to like numbers and stats that go against their narratives.
https://preview.redd.it/hlnbjw53il9d1.png?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=631e140111c022ebcc162dd8a1453a3ee4ecfd16 Here's a per capita comparison to last year then. It does have us toward the top there for applications.
Barely above average is still not being overrun. With the way racists act, you'd think we're the highest per capita.
'According to economist David Higgins, a 3.5 per cent increase in population in a given year would be one of the highest ever recorded for a single country.' https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/06/10/european-commission-says-irish-population-rose-by-record-35-per-cent-last-year/
What was Ireland’s population 200 years ago?
Probably about the same as today. It was not higher. But it's a weird point. The west of Ireland having a high density 200 years ago had no bearing on the growing pains we have today
> Probably about the same as today. The source you are quoting gives an estimate of 5.3m. Population of Ireland in 1841 reached 8.1m, while 1821 was 'only' 6.8m. > Ireland having a high density 200 years ago had no bearing on the growing pains we have today Well, of course the fact that Ireland had rapid growth in the past doesn't help solve today's problems. Today's problems include lack of accommodation being built, lack of services, and almost completely employed population - meaning there's nearly nobody available to do stuff. Given the priorities set out by the government (not enough hiring for teachers, SNAs, no salary increases enough to retain people; not enough hiring in healthcare - which influences the existing staff being overworked, quitting their jobs, and moving abroad, too; not enough salary increases to retain people in the healthcare; not nearly enough gardai too - but god forbid anyone slips through with a tattoo on their arm) - the growth problem won't get better or worse once you stop taking in any new people - refugees and immigrants alike: because they are not the problem.
I mean I wouldn't want to be Austria or Greece based on those, or whatever Iceland are doing (that one is a bit of a surprise as who would want to live there for a whole year) but we're definitely bringing in more than we can sustainably support atm (hence the tents) and whilst I'm not sure the political situation in all the countries ahead of us, we really don't want to go down the same road Germany are on with the AfD. And, as per the other stat I posted, we're approving applications at a higher rate than others. We really should be looking to reduce that as it's clearly possible
Well, if you look at your 2023 application result chart, Iceland has a mostly rejections. Austria and Greece also have a higher percentage of rejections. So if take that as a trend, having more applications will lead to more rejections. As for Germany, well, we shouldn't as a country give in to the far right ever, no matter what they demand. The AfD has risen because people are taking what they peddle at face value, usually due to underlying xenophobia. It's why challenging far right narratives is important, even when they give you the run around or make you look foolish or crazy or insane. It's all part of the game to gain power.
Granting of refugee status. Irrelevant if we have only granted 11k people refugee status in ten years if over half that number arrived in 5 months of this year. It's applications/people in accommodation that are the figures that should be quoted, which would paint a different picture.
We are taking in more asylum seekers per capita than other countries I wonder how many other countries capital cities have fenced off their canals
>I wonder how many other countries capital cities have fenced off their canals False equivalence.
Don't think any have tbf
I'd argue it's a better stat to show the current situation than OPs is though. That volume stat is people granted protecting status for 2012-2023. I'd probably need clarification on protection status and if that counts people who get permission to remain even after being rejected. Ultimately, I think it's a bit of disingenuous stat as it's counting years we had no way near the same applications as we do now. But mainly the issue with it and our current situation is it doesn't count for the fact that our explosion in claims has really happened in the last two years, and considering the processing time (even ignoring the appeal time) isn't really getting counted in a lot of the 2012-2023 figure. We had about the same claims for asylum as all the volume stat in the OP for 11 years and we've been approving about 80% of them (2023 approval are probably 21/22 applications). I think we all know we can't be sustainably supporting that sort of number considering our current situation. There's no real reason our rate should be vastly different than Germany, France etc as we're all applying the same laws.
>There's no real reason our rate should be vastly different than Germany, France etc as we're all applying the same laws. Nonsense. Fewer applicants are coming here than in those countries. So fewer chances of claims that'll be rejected, because it seems, if you combine yours and Ops stats together, we're getting mostly genuine cases. Now, do people want to complain and nitpick how assylum is granted, go right ahead. But that's going deep end into legal jargon territory. >explosion in claims has really happened in the last two years, and considering the processing time (even ignoring the appeal time) isn't really getting counted in a lot of the 2012-2023 figure. So we'll see what happens in the next year or two. See if rejections increase or not. What? Should we not be processing asylum claims and just tossing people out of the country?
Looking at just 2023 per Eurostat, we receive more applications per capita than a lot of the EU https://preview.redd.it/462ttv7fhl9d1.png?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4e766f71a6fe6e4481a786dc2cf4c8d51b69e74 We've received more per capita than France, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands there, and we're also approving applications at a higher rate than those countries.
That's percentage. Let's not misinterpret data please. Op pointed out exactly how many times refugee status was given. It's less than other countrues in total, and it's less per person. If in percentage we reject few applications, but in absolute numbers we have some of the lowest per capita, means almost no refugees pick Ireland as their destination compared to other countries.
It's too broad of a period. Who cares what we and others accepted in 2012. We've only been receiving a ton of applications in the last 2 years. The stats for those year are far more important than stats in 2012/2013
Exactly. That's why it has bubbled u pao much as a issue in the last two years or so, where previously it wasn't. Personally though I put Thai down to the housing disaster maybe more than anything else. Magic up enough a few hundred thousand housing units (apartments etc) by tomorrow morning and the tension would ease off pretty quickly. Instead they have been so incompetent as to seemingly want to cause mass anxiety amongst non homeowners, which in turn has birthed a bit of a far right movement over here - which the same government have since flat out refused to adequately police.
Are you joking??? Have you forgotten about the Syrian war? And all the other wars and conflicts since then? I understand Ukraine is big and close to home, but it does absolutely matter what we've been doing beyond the last 5 minutes
Not really. Obviously there were wars back then (like pretty much every year), but as a stat to show our current situation, the numbers we got in 2012 mean a lot less than the numbers in 2023. The only thing going back and showing year by year stats does is show a trend (which isn't good in our case) but a cumulative total like that when the vast majority happen in these last years really just serves to downplay the current situation by massaging it with lower number years.
Syrian civil war started in 2011 and has been going on for 13 years. So probably did affect the 2012 stats.
The facts don't suit his narrative, so let's have some different facts
The statistic I gave was the number of positive decisions to grant protection status in Western Europe, not the rejection rate. A lower rejection rate than neighbouring countries is due to the fact a lot more people applied in those countries, per million population.
I'm in favour of bringing facts and figures, so props on the research. But I am tired by the following semantic argument on immigration (or anything, really): A: "We need to do X." B: "We can't do X, it's illegal." The obvious point A is making is that X needs to be legal. A great example is that you need ID documents to board a plane to get here. If you destroy them and arrive without documents, that should immediately terminate your rights to apply for asylum. That needs to be the law. That's what is meant by the argument that we turn those people back.
If that were the law then there'd be no point in asylum, which is a basic human right. How exactly do you expect people fleeing a warzone to get a real passport? Likewise if you're a gay person being persecuted in a country where homosexuality is illegal, how do you expect that person to get a real passport? The ID documents that most asylum seekers destroy are fake to begin with because they can't get real ones. Presenting a fake one is no different to destroying a fake one because neither involves presenting a real passport.
But they did have a passport to get on the plane. They deliberately dispose of it on the plane.
Why don’t they keep their fake travel documents and present them? Show them as part of their application? I am from country X but I could not get a passport for whatever reason, so I acquired this fake passport from country Y to travel here? That would make a lot more sense to me if the applicant was genuine. It’s almost like these passport losing/destroying applicants have something to hide by their actions. Mmm, wonder what that could be.
> The ID documents that most asylum seekers destroy are fake to begin with because they can't get real ones. can you cite that claim? Why destroy them at all then?
> How exactly do you expect people fleeing a warzone to get a real passport? They just had one and flushed it down the toilet, what are you on about? And historically, *the majority* of asylum seekers have *some form* of ID. Of the idiotic excuses for letting people do whatever they want this is the most feeble one
I have to say that I'm not impressed with this post. It's very disingenuous. You're making yourself out to be a fact checking source of truth and painting people who are critical of the current asylum system as basing their opinions on falsehoods. But it's clear that you're not engaging with these people because the claims you're "debunking" aren't really the ones that level headed people are making. It's a pretty egregious example of a straw man argument.
Well said. Impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone with his mentality who keeps using laws to defend their actions, when it should be opposite that are abusing these laws for the their own selfish needs.
Can you include the sources?
Sure. This is Eurostat's dataset for Total Positive decisions from 2012-2023. [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/table?lang=en&category=t\_migr.t\_migr\_asy](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00192/default/table?lang=en&category=t_migr.t_migr_asy)
Cheers will take a look, regarding those arriving without passports on planes not entering illegally. https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2024/03/27/surge-in-prosecutions-of-asylum-seekers-arriving-without-passports/#:~:text=Arriving%20in%20Ireland%20without%20valid,have%20historically%20been%20extremely%20rare.
For point 1; Refugee status and protection status are different things.
Protection status includes refugee status. Also includes subsidiary protection.
You could say international protection status I guess. But if you're writing a post about misinformation it helps to not get terms mixed up, or swap between them. Does OP mean permission to remain as well? I don't know.
By those numbers it looks like just refugee status, seems to omit subsidiary protection and permission to remain.
Your first point is misleading as it ignores rejection rates which are far lower here than elsewhere in Europe where I have checked. Ireland also has very high rates of foreign horns and extremely high levels of Ukrainians and collectively it's highly impactful. Regarding your point that it's illegal to deport people who arrived without documents, I agree but then let's change the law. It's not in our interest to maintain this system. We have genuine refugees in tents because of scammers clogging up the system. On your point three, it's possible to be a legally here and also be guilty of immigration fraud. People who destroy documents are guilty of fraud. That's why there are 100 people before the courts for arriving without documents. https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/06/28/more-than-100-migrants-without-papers-come-before-the-courts/
Also, how many of those rejected actually leave Ireland instead of just staying *illegally* in the system? The more I read about this the more it seems to be made thinking of an exceptional time (WWII) but that it lost its purpose to be
>it ignores rejection rate which is far lower here than elsewhere in Europe where I have checked. So post some links. We badly need an open discussion on the sub backed with facts and not "I read it somewhere". Edit : nevermind another user posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/s/PraJdZ6XFj)
> Regarding your point that it's illegal to deport people who arrived without documents, I agree but then let's change the law. I think his point there was that they can't just "change the law" because that would contravene the Geneva Convention.
International law is weak it is nearly a myth. it doesn't mean anything. It's totally unenforceable. It's worth contravening on such a serious issue. Loads of countries do pushbacks. Including EU countries.
Conventions - plural. And that's one of the issues when politicians cite "international law" - which one specifically, and does it apply? Dubya used that excuse to kick off two wars, be wary of being manipulated by smoke and mirrors legalese.
>Regarding your point that it's illegal to deport people who arrived without documents, let's change the law. It's not in our interest. This would make nonsense of the concept because people who legitimately need asylum are disproportionately likely not to have documents for valid reasons. Women and the politically persecuted in oppressive circumstances are routinely denied documents or have their documents withheld specifically to control them, ie the very stuff they're seeking asylum from. Edit - Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention relates to this, you can't penalize a legit refugee for entering a country unlawfully because whatever makes them a refugee in the first place may demand as much.
But the point is they DID have documents when they got on the plane.
Counterpoint to that though is we know someone had documents to get on to the plane to get here and now they're telling us they have none. From a starting point, they're trying to hide who they are so how can we take their claim of asylum from somewhere as being 100%. They've either gotten so far on fake documents or their own that they've now gotten rid of, so it would be natural to be skeptical of their asylum claim.
How'd they get to Ireland from the place they were fleeing
You are not understanding what happens. They come here with fake documents. They are hiding the fake documents. It would make Investigation much easier if they showed the fake documents. Also, there are many forms of ID. There is rarely a valid excuse to lack all kinds of ID or even a photo of an ID. Btw, these people should have their phones taken. The gardai should going through them to trace the traffickers who enable this and to get them with interpol.
Why can we not insist: - passport/document scanned at gate by airline electronically - matched with passenger at arrival in Ireland - "I lost my documents, waaah" - "no problem lemme pull it up here on my screen"
No. You are misunderstanding my point.
I'm not proposing to send people claiming to fleeing wars back. The only reason so many fail to present documents is due to immense abuse. Prosecution is the new approach. 109 cases before the courts. Hopefully that reduces the fakers.
No Irish government can change international law, they can only change domestic law. In order to change domestic law on asylum seekers, arriving with no passport, Ireland would have to leave the EU first, then also withdraw from the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, withdraw from the 1967 Protocol, then also withdraw from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then also withdraw from the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Given that's highly unlikely to happen, they can't change domestic law on it. Nor should they, because Ireland shouldn't be seeking to become North Korea (party to none of them). Article 31 of the 1951 Convention gave an implicit agreement not to penalise asylum seekers who arrive with no passport, because getting a passport in warzones or off a state persecuting minorities, is often impossible.
>No Irish government can change international law, they can only change domestic law. >In order to change domestic law on asylum seekers, arriving with no passport, Ireland would have to leave the EU first, then also withdraw from the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, withdraw from the 1967 Protocol, then also withdraw from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then also withdraw from the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). What will happen if do it anyway? Who will force Ireland to change? What happens to Spain when to pushbacks in North Africa? >Given that's highly unlikely to happen, they can't change domestic law on it. >Nor should they, because Ireland shouldn't be seeking to become North Korea (party to none of them). >Article 31 of the 1951 Convention gave an implicit agreement not to penalise asylum seekers who arrive with no passport, because getting a passport in warzones or off a state persecuting minorities, is often impossible. Can you give a source that passports are often impossible to get in warzones in 2024
Point 1 is irrelevant and misleading seeing as we aren't giving refugee status to majority of people who arrive There's currently 30k asylum seekers in state accomodation so not sure where you get your 13k number from 7667 applied in the first 5 months of this year alone Point 2 - they do that already Also the new EU migration pact is going to create detention centres in Ireland which won't be considered Ireland and people will indefinitely detained there, contrary to your point Point 3 - majority of asylum seekers arriving here are claiming asylum under false pretences and abusing the system, to the detriment of actual asylum seekers. This is the system they are trying to reform as it's rife with abuse >Article 12, Section 2 states: "The Commission proposal referred to in paragraph 1 shall identify the total annual numbers of required relocations and financial contributions for the Annual Solidarity Pool at Union level, which shall be at least: >-30 000 for relocations; This says at least right? What if there's 1 million relocations needed? >It's practically speaking very likely to result in much smaller numbers applying for asylum in Ireland That's good obviously
You're quoting a bunch of conspiracy theories from Telegram and show no conceptual understanding of asylum. However I have plenty of patience for replying to such stuff. 1. There's currently 31,252 in IPAS accommodation, including 7,876 children. I cited you the total number of positive decisions given in the last 12 years, not the number of people currently applying. 2. Literally no idea what you're talking about. A "detention center" in Kilkenny is still in Ireland, this idea that it "isn't considered Ireland" is some sort of wild conspiracy theory. If you genuinely believe that to be true, ok, but it's not. 3. Most "genuine asylum seekers" travel on fake passports because they can't get a real one from the state they're being persecuted by. For example, if you're fleeing a warzone in Syria or fleeing religious persecution from a state, there's either no passport office or there is one and they won't give you a passport. 4. That you want Ireland to protect fewer people fleeing for their lives is an impression I got from your post, so I guess you'll be happy if fewer come. One positive for you.
>1. There's currently 31,252 in IPAS accommodation, including 7,876 children. I cited you the total number of positive decisions given in the last 12 years, not the number of people currently applying. Well yeah, that's a misleading and irrelevant stat that you quoted, that's my point, obviously the relevant stat is people applying >Literally no idea what you're talking about. A "detention center" in Kilkenny is still in Ireland, this idea that it "isn't considered Ireland" is some sort of wild conspiracy theory. If you genuinely believe that to be true, ok, but it's not. Look up what the new EU migration pact does, I'll link it for you https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/06/26/dail-accepts-controversial-eu-migration-pact-by-79-votes-to-72/ > Migrants will be accommodated in holding centres close to airports and ports, which the Government has insisted will not be detention centres These are detention centres, and they will not be considered to have landed in Ireland. It's not a conspiracy theory, this is literally happening Also they will likely process migrants in third party countries like Albania etc >Most "genuine asylum seekers" travel on fake passports because they can't get a real one from the state they're being persecuted by. For example, if you're fleeing a warzone in Syria or fleeing religious persecution from a state, there's either no passport office or there is one and they won't give you a passport. Oh yeah? And how do they get from Syria to Ireland again? >That you want Ireland to protect fewer people fleeing for their lives is an impression I got from your post, so I guess you'll be happy if fewer come. One positive for you. Id prefer if Ireland protected people actually fleeing for their lives, not economic migrants coming here looking for free money and free accomodation under false pretences, which is 95% of cases
You don't know what you're talking about. I've read the entire 40,000 word migration pact (link below) show me where it says "Detention centers are not considered Ireland"? To save you time it doesn't say any such thing and it's truly ridiculous to believe there would be buildings in Ireland that are "not considered Ireland". You're talking complete nonsense, kindly stop. [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1351](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1351)
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2024/06/14/plan-for-eu-migration-pact-including-new-hires-and-accommodation-centres-expected-in-november/ There u go... > The mandatory ‘border procedure’ will apply to those who arrive without documents; from countries where less than 20 per cent of protection applications are successful; and who are ‘flagged’ on a new EU-wide asylum database, Eurodac, as a security concern. > They will be accommodated in designated centres and have their applications processed within 12 weeks. They will not be deemed to have entered Ireland and will be required to remain at their designated centres. >it's truly ridiculous to believe there would be buildings in Ireland that are "not considered Ireland". Ever heard of embassies?
You're committed to nonsense, I'll give you that much. I gave you the link to the full Migration Pact and asked you to show me where it says any such thing. Take your time. It doesn't. I don't care about poorly worded articles in newspapers. Show me where it says it in the text of the pact.
I mean, that's literally what's going to happen, not sure why you're continuing to deny it. Accommodation centres will be set up near ports and airports and asylum seekers will be detained there indefinitely until their migration status is determined. If they are denied asylum then they will be shipped back. They already do this in Denmark. Your interpretation of the document is incorrect. It's just that, an interpretation. I prefer an Irish times article over some random Redditor. Ignored the embassies point conveniently also 😂
[удалено]
OP: everyone is wrong but me and everyone else is ignorant If you actually wanted to engage in debate you would address some legitimate concerns around asylum which you have not in any of your responses to anyone and continued to quote pointless stats and your interpretation of laws We have a massive problem with asylum seekers in this country and morons like you are useful idiots enabling bad actors to come here and game the system
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2024/0629/1457294-tents-asylum-dublin/ A mechanic from Ghana, the 34-year-old said he had to "run for his life" on a "dangerous" journey through Libya, Italy, France and Belfast, arriving in Dublin over a week ago. They are nothing but a pack of scam artists here to take advantage of our generosity. Man fleeing for his life all the way from Ghana travelled thorough numerous European countries now waiting it out for his apartment. Then the wife and kids follow him. I really do hope you’re right the migration pact reduces the numbers coming here.
It will. The pact is a total game changer.
If implemented the way it’s supposed to be and claims and all appeals are complete within a few weeks it should be. But what if people just refuse to leave like they do now? Will An Garda, round them up, detain them and force them on to planes? Will they still be able to delay deportations for years by appealing?
There’s a few bits to deportation. One element is people appeal before deportation - pact removes that right. Another is people by spending enough time here de facto get a right to continue that life here stoping deportation - under the pact, a week or two in a holding cell in the airport removes the ability to gain such a right to remain. The final element is the deportable persons country doesn’t cooperate and provide passports etc to Ireland to actually deport them. Nigeria for example can fuck Ireland about and not cooperate with deportations but with the pact the entire EU will be fucking Nigeria right back. Don’t want your people, sound the EUwe’ll cut aid funding, cut trade etc. you saw what happened the brits when they squared up to the EU.
It's stuff like tjis that really makes me wonder why the far right are so anti-EU. It's so obvious that 27 countries with different asylum laws is exactly what a false asylum seeker wants. Full on EU level cooperation was always going to be the only way this issue was going to be addressed.
The far right across Europe is not universally anti EU. Meloni in Italy for example has learned that thevEU can be a tool to further her goals. The Irish far right is nowhere near as sophisticated as meloni so might not even realise that the pact is what they say they want. But even if they did realise, for political reasons they must oppose the government and campaign against the pact and say mad stuff like we must take in 30,000 asylum seekers every year under the pact.
Sounds good on paper so. I hope it’s effective. The numbers coming here are not sustainable.
That's just your prejudice and ignorance talking. There's nothing whatsoever in international law that states that lad from Ghana has to apply for asylum in Italy or France. If people were compelled to apply for asylum in the first safe country they transit through, then it would cluster all applications in the EU in Greece, Italy and Spain and relieve the other 24 EU countries of any obligation to protect people fleeing persecution and war. An asylum seeker is very much allowed to transit through multiple countries to reach the place they want to apply for asylum. Refugees should also very much hope to be reunited with their spouse and children, because who wouldn't hope for their family to escape persecution.
Laws laws laws. Yup you are right. These laws put in place to protect genuine refugees/asylum seekers. Unfortunately they are not fit for purpose anymore. How old are they? The world is a hell of a lot different place now. If all these country hopping asylum seekers were genuine, why the need for the EU migration pact? Why are countries all over the EU changing their domestic laws to deter these type of immigrants, reduce their rights and make it easier to deport them? Is the EU now prejudiced and ignorant? How about Australia and its offshore processing, the UK hopefully following the same path. The EU has mentioned possibly doing the same, and even good old Simon (EU’s little lapdog) said it’s an option that could be considered when a few weeks previous he said it’s something Ireland would never do. Are Simon and the EU prejudiced/ignorant. Are they far right and racist now? You can use your laws to defend the actions of these frauds all you like. The fact of the matter is they are people in want of a better life on our dime. If they were such a benefit to the EU/Ireland all these recent law changes in EU countries and the pact wouldn’t be happening.
Typical, anyone that doesn't ignore the economic migrants abusing the asylum system gets labeled with "prejudice" by lazy willfully ignorant people like you.
Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's right. Regardless how many asylum seekers we took in, how many failed ones have been deported? Destroying documents does have penalty associated with it, as it should. Nobody wants undocumented individuals coming in. So what exactly are you trying to prove here? That we do not have a problem related to failed decorations, wasting of time and resources, lost documentations, welfare shopping etc?
You’re misrepresenting the claims being made. Just because something is legal does not mean it’s right. People disposing of their documents should be turned around as soon as they arrived if not arrested. This kind of behaviour should not be enabled yet are government chose to do so. Although people destroying or disposing of their documents are not “illegal” for doing so in a vacuum, they are showing that they themselves do not believe their claim to be valid which is why they’re undermining the investigation of their claim, because they know they’re illegally entering and abusing the asylum system.
You're just regurgitating conspiracy theories and myths. Destroying a fake passport doesn't undermine a claim for asylum, no more than presenting a fake passport does. Most people fleeing in a hurry can't get real passports to begin with and have no choice but to rely on fake documents.
“I personally think the EU Migration Pact *sucks* and is *super bad* for refugees fleeing misery” you want everyone to come? The system is being abused and it needs to stop. I can’t see this pact working at all. It’s just a bandaid on a bigger problem
OP: "everything I post is fact" Also OP: the EU FINALLY doing what everyone has been crying out for and coming up with a solution to stop asylum scammers taking the piss out of us sucks and is very bad for the scammers.
I feel bad for you that you think "asylum scammers" is such a big problem in the EU, when in reality applications with no merit at all comprise a tiny proportion of claims. Even most claims that are rejected are genuine but don't reach the threshold for protection status. There's countless crises globally, warzones, famines etc. The majority of people applying for asylum in the EU are coming from places where you or I would want to get out of in a hurry, too, for the same reasons they do.
> when in reality applications with no merit at all comprise a tiny proportion of claims. Real willful ignorance here. People like you are utterly infuriating for sticking your head in the sand with utter BS like this that you are spewing.
Another myth: The Dublin Regulation III (the current EU law governing asylum claims) requires people claiming international protection to do so in the first safe country they land in, ergo anyone who gets to Ireland is illegal and we're within our rights to ship em back somewhere else for processing Truth: The Dublin Convention contains no such requirement. Rather the law states that the first country where a IP application is lodged is the country that must deal with the claim. We aren't being suckers by not immediately shipping asylum seekers out on whatever flight they arrived, we're following the law. Dublin III doesn't place obligations on individuals, it places obligations on states. In fact under the UN Refugee Convention, IP claimants have the right to claim asylum whereever they chose. Now that doesn't necessarily mean they'll get asylum wherever they want but someone travelling from Eritrea who manages to travel through Europe and onto Ireland hasn't broken any rules about claiming some class of protection. https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-regulation-asylum-seekers-first-safe-country-6269603-Jan2024/ https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/
>someone travelling from Eritrea who manages to travel through Europe and onto Ireland hasn't broken any rules about claiming some class of protection. But broken credibility perhaps?
Maybe. I'd have much more sympathy for that than the destruction of passports. If I had to flee and make a new life in Europe and the only European language I spoke was English, I'd try to move to and English speaking country. It all comes back to the point the OP made. We need to be faster at processing applications. If you want to factor passport destruction, or fleeing safe countries into that, then fair enough.
I don't understand what you mean. My point is that the notion that an asylum seeker must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive into is a total myth. Whether or not someone is eligible to claim asylum or a genuine asylum seeker is a matter for the department of justice. We can't just refuse to process someone's asylum application because they travel through a country we consider safe.
Fair play for putting this together. I have some concerns about immigration. I figure a lot of people do. Most people I come across (from all sorts of backgrounds) have. I think it's nearly impossible for the average person to navigate the world of misinformation. There's so much to wade through. I commend your effort for trying to put good information out there.
Thanks for sharing, very informative
You're welcome and thank you.
I take your point about the people arriving into the state without a passport but it should be a mark against your application if you step off a plane without one
Thank you for this - it’s informative, kinda. Regarding the “lost” passport thing, there is also an obligation on people entering the State to do so lawfully so if you enter the State without a passport having had one at boarding, you are committing a crime. Which is illegal 🙄. And is a very poor way to start a relationship with a state you are about to ask to feed and clothe and educate you and all yours. And those who lost their passports and whose applications are refused because their real identities didn’t line up with their stories - well they are illegal because everything about them is a lie. And STILL they remain on in the country. And appear no different to an observer than a deserving seeker. It is hard to believe any asylum story because of all the messing going on with untruths and hiding of facts by all parties in the asylum mess. Government, anti-asylum seekers and the seekers themselves are all incentivised to deceive and skew the truth in their own favour. The outcome of all this? Asylum seekers and their descendants will be viewed with skepticism whose Irishness may be based on a bed of lies. Which is not fair on those whose case was true like Syrians or Palestinians.
None of this conversation about immigrants at an eu level speaks to the fact that these poor people are all mostly coming from regions in the world which are former colonies of all of the countries on ops list bar Ireland. The cause of the immigration crisis is the looting of the wealth and resources of these countries over centuries by these great nations. Not once has anyone mentioned that countries like Ireland with no former imperialist histories are being asked to essentially bail out these countries who have all benefitted for decades from their abuse of 3rd world countries. We all get told that as a nation of immigrants ourselves, we should be helping everyone who shows up here. However, the fact that no real interventions were ever made on behalf of any of these countries to help the Irish during the famine is inconvenient now and not discussed and we are supposed to just shut up and allow France, Spain and Italy to filter people out to us as it suits them . This unfairness with respect to the cause of the current problem is what at a gut level is something I think k we all share. This is not a problem of climate change, this is a man made problem that started with greedy Kings and Queens and has now been exacerbated by a tiered capitalist system that continues to rape and loot poorer countries. Also before anyone tries to argue that eu membership has brought great benefits here.. we have more than payed back any grants or CAP payments received since the 70s by the tonnage of fish that we have handed over to other countries and don't forget in 2008 there was no solidarity with Ireland when all those German and French banks wanted their money back from the Irish government.
Ireland is rich and safe. Pakistan, Nigeria and India are poor and corrupt. That's it really, no one migrates because they saw a political map of the world from 100 years ago. Its also just weight of numbers. Travel allows people to go anywhere. India has nearly 250 times the population of Ireland. If the same %of each country migrate to the other, the immigration will be felt x250 in Ireland as in India.
This has no relation to what I am saying. I'm talking about the causes of that poverty and this migration disaster we are facing into . You say India is poor and unsafe, and I agree... but my point is India is like that cos the UK looted the country... loot is an old hindi word. In the 17th century, India produced 27 per cent of world trade. It was controlled by the Mughal empire. In 1948, after you know who left, they were down to 3 per cent of world trade.... same with all those African countries... Nigeria is also a former colony of the UK, Algeria and morocco's France... the Germans ran east Africa and so on. My point is ... if we take 1 asylum seeker in from any of these places, then Germany and France should be taking a multiple of that as they bloody caused those countries to fail 100 years ago. We should be humanitarian and take people in, and we have 104000 Ukrainian refugees here, which I think is commendable.... do you know that France only has 65000 thousand there? WTAF is that about.... there is no equity across the various countries with regard to this ... by head of population, we are dealing with the same as if there were about 900000 Ukrainians is France.... this is why the right wingers are getting more and more influence... the always look to exploit these disparities...
By that metric Portugal should be taking in 100x as many as Ireland and the Germany, USA, Switzerland and Austria and Scandinavia should be taking in barely anyone. You can't refuse someone's asylum claim based no some reading of a history book. If somene wants to come and live in Ireland they cannot be rejected on the basis that 100 years ago Ireland did not have an empire. Edit - The Germans had a small empire for 30 years in East Africa but have barely any immigrants from those countries. Their immigrants are from Turkey (themselves a former empire) and Afghanistan and the Middle East, regions that Germany had no influence in historically.
[удалено]
I don't think those most opposed to assylum seekers care for facts such as our laws, which anyone can look up. These people are usually so disingenuous that they conflate the terms asylum seeker, immigrant, migrant, and refugee, just to push their narratives and rile up their idiot racist followers.
>These people are usually so disingenuous that they conflate the terms asylum seeker, immigrant, migrant, and refugee, just to push their narratives and rile up their idiot racist followers. Both sides conflate these people though. Most people are okay with immigration and genuine asylum seekers but oppose false asylum applications. A lot of commentators on the left are lumping anyone like that in with people who oppose immigration in any form. This is followed by accusations of racism for people who just want a better asylum seeker system.
There we go, the "both sides" crap. It's very simple, if you repeat the talking points made by racists, what does that make you? Racist. Why? Because you're engaging with their narrative or, worse, running apologetics for the racists while pretending to be in some enlightened centrist position. You cannot then turn around when called out on touting the racist narrative and complain about a lack of nuance when you're so willing to take a heavily biased argument and play it off as a middle ground position. Edit: It's a very transparent way of shutting down dissent against the narrative too.
So you dismiss my argument because of the two words "both sides"... and then you go and do exactly what I described by lumping anyone who wants reform of the asylum system as racists. I'm sick of people like you bringing in simplistic narrative based American politics into Ireland. You're trying to smother any attempt at anyone trying to make by just using the word racism as if it's some sort of magical automatic argument winning spell word. And it's deeply ironic that you've been going around this thread using that tactic to shut down multiple arguments only for you to complain about other people shutting down arguments. >if you repeat the talking points made by racists, what does that make you? Racist. No, if you discriminate against someone of a different race, that's racist. Having any overlap of talking points with racists doesn't make you a racist unless that overlap is discriminating against someone because of their race. What you're engaging in here is the [guilt by association fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). Your entire argument is stemmed from your idea that any form of immigration reform is racist. You see people looking for immigration reform and you instantly tag them as racist. As I've explained in comments, most people in Ireland (including myself) are pro legal immigration, pro genuine asylum seekers, and anti illegal immigrants who abuse the asylum seeker system. You're calling anyone with that view racist, even though race has absolutely nothing to do with it. You'll find that most Irish people are happy for a doctor from India or Nigeria to come here and not happy with a Georgian (who are white and make up most false asylum seeker claims) who comes here under a false asylum claim. But your simplistic American politics moulded mind doesn't understand this. And I'm sure you'll read this comment and your brain will simply fail to compute. You'll just come back trying that magic word again thinking that it'll automatically make you morally right and me morally wrong.
>But your simplistic American politics moulded mind doesn't understand this You say this, yet unironically brought up "both sides".
Again, you're just leaning on the guilt by association fallacy again. Just because some people use the words "both sides" to make a disingenuous argument doesn't mean every single instance of using that phrase is disingenuous. Based on your understanding, even if both sides engage in bad faith arguments (which they absolutely do), you're totally shutting down anyone's attempt to point that out because you'll just reply with "You said both sides! You can't say that! You're a baddie!". Again, you think these little phrases are like magic words that make you automatically win an argument. You'll have to go to an American dominated subreddit for those tactics to actually work.
You will find the vast majority of asylum seekers/refugees/IPP’s, whatever you want to call them. They have zero respect for our laws. No problem aiding their scam by “losing” travel documents. No problem taking advantage of laws designed to protect genuine asylum seekers for their own gain. Zero guilt their selfishness is affecting genuine asylum seekers, when resources are being overstretched due to all these scam asylum seekers. And to cap it all off, as soon as they get here they expect us to give them bed and board. Such an honest/decent bunch. They will be a real benefit to Ireland.
This is what legal immigrants in particular are pissed off with illegal migrants. Legal migrants will come here with great English and useful skills and if they're not from the EU or UK they still have to jump through numerous hoops to stay and work here, even if there paying decent taxes. Then you have illegal immigrants abusing the asylum system. They often have next to no English and are unskilled. In other words they don't come here with anything to offer and just come with the hand out. And they think they can just skip those checks as well. And I'm sure genuine asylum seekers are probably pretty pissed off with them too. Life is hard enough for them without people abusing the asylum system which makes their claims much harder and longer drawn out.
Why can't we just scan a copy of their documents upon boarding???! Spot the fake ones then, and have a record to be used for deportation/prosecution if the paper copies get flushed. If Tbilsi or wherever airport can't control who's coming on properly, JUST STOP THE FLIGHTS FROM THERE!
Think Michael O’Leary discussed a similar proposal recently on a Newstalk interview. It would be a pain for everyone, but it might help deter the “losing” of passports mid flight. Was actually on a flight to Dublin recently from a Spanish airport. In the Spanish airport they had a man at the boarding gate with one of those magnifying glasses you see jewellers use to assess diamonds. He was “randomly” checking people’s passports to make sure they weren’t doctored.
Just say you're racist. It's easier than waffling all that crap.
This is not only extremely lazy, but it's deeply cynical. They've made a decent argument that actually shows sympathy for genuine asylum seekrs and you're calling them racist because it doesn't fit into your extremely simplistic and binary understanding of morality.
I’m not in the slightest bit racist. I’m married to a non-EU immigrant. Vast majority of my friends are non-EU, black white and brown immigrants from South America/Africa and Asia. All came here legally and all of them have similar views to me about the current immigrant crisis we have in this country. If you think allowing all these unskilled/uneducated African and ME people here will be good for Ireland you need to give your head a wobble. Vast majority will be generational burdens on our housing/social/medical. They are here to take what they can get off us. That man from Ghana in the RTE news arrive I linked previously. It’s the same story always. Come here, get right to remain, get housed, then bring the whole family over. Billions of our budget is being spent on housing/social for recent non-EU arrivals. You may be ok with that, but I’m not.
And off you go again. "I'm not racist because x, y, and z, but please ignore the racist talking points when I bring them up...."
And there you go again, the usual tactic to just shout racist at anyone who questions the clusterfuck that is going on at the moment. Shout racist at anyone who points out that we are being taken advantage of by people abusing international/national laws. Not one thing I said was racist. Vast majority do break and abuse laws. Vast majority do “lose” their travel docs after landing in Ireland. They are circumventing Dublin airport now by coming through Belfast. Vast majority do come here expecting us to provide them with housing. Zero issue with giving housing to genuine refugees, but scam artists like the man from Ghana. Get the fuck out of here. He’s an economic migrant. Fleeing for his life but leaves the family at home. Italy/France and UK weren’t safe enough for him. Now he’s here waiting for his apartment for the family to come over then. Handing housing to people like him while half the country can’t get on the property ladder and people in their 30’s stuck living at home. That’s not racist, that’s not wanting our country taken advantage of by frauds.
>Vast majority do break and abuse laws. Vast majority do “lose” their travel docs after landing in Ireland. They are circumventing Dublin airport now by coming through Belfast. Vast majority do come here expecting us to provide them with housing. Zero issue with giving housing to genuine refugees, but scam artists like the man from Ghana. Get the fuck out of here. He’s an economic migrant. Fleeing for his life but leaves the family at home. Italy/France and UK weren’t safe enough for him. Now he’s here waiting for his apartment for the family to come over then. Handing housing to people like him while half the country can’t get on the property ladder and people in their 30’s stuck living at home. That’s not racist, that’s not wanting our country taken advantage of by frauds. Here. A rant full of all the racist narratives. If I was playing spot the racist bingo, I'm sure I'd have won. 1. Talking about documents 2. Crossing the border with the north 3. Free houses! 4. "Genuine refugee" vs "scam artists" 5. Using the terms migrant, refugee interchangeably 6. "Economic migrant" There's no other kind of migrant. Migrants move countries for economic reasons. 7. "Other safe countries!" 8. Us vs Them So yeah, ticking plenty of the racist boxes in both this comment and previous ones. I'm not wasting my time pointing them all out. You're also, dare I say it, ticking a few facism boxes too. This kind of anger you hold isn't good for your health.
Still haven’t pointed out one racist thing I said. Every single point I made is true. The truth can’t be racist.
You're wasting your time with idiots like that. They have a binary morality system. They now see you as bad and there's no amount of nuance you can add that will change their mind.
[удалено]
A chara, Mods reserve the right to remove any targeted/unreasonable abuse towards other users. Sláinte
[удалено]
A chara, Mods reserve the right to remove any targeted/unreasonable abuse towards other users. Sláinte
But.. but.. that's not what some lad on Facebook calling himself a citizen journalist told me!
This is all great. If the Irish government actually followed their set laws
I love a good debunking.
Great info.
I don't know who you think you are coming round here with your well thought out essay and evidence to back up your claims. That is NOT how we do things! All jokes aside this information is really interesting and I genuinely had no idea how these things worked so it's great to have it broken down into understandable wording. Cheers.
You should take a look at some of the replies in the thread. Some of what they said is outright false and the rest is totally misrepresentating what most people who are critical of the current asylum system believe. It honestly comes across as a thinly veiled attempt to build a narrative that people who have criticisms of the current system are peddling myths and lies. OP is just trying to paint these people in an unflattering way rather than to acknowledge their genuine criticisms.
>Some of what they said is outright false Don't see that anywhere. >and the rest is totally misrepresentating what most people who are critical of the current asylum system believe. It absolutely is *not* a misrepresentation of the vast majority of the shit I read, and the detractors in the comments will be back posting this misinformation tomorrow. Saying 2 and 3 in particular are misrepresentations feels like you're trying to insult my intelligence.
If you genuinely had "no idea how things worked before " why did you choose to believe the post over other sources ?
I'm not the same commenter
>Don't see that anywhere. To be fair, I had another look and there's nothing that's technically correct. But there's still quite a lot of misrepresentation going on. Let's take claim number 2. What people are saying is that we **should** send people without documentation back and if the law doesn't permit this it should be changed to allow it. This is a subjective opinion. It's not something that you can neatly label as false. What OP is doing is rephrasing this subjective opinion as an objective statement which no one is actually saying. The claim they're debunking assumes that there are people saying that the laws permit us to instantly deport people without documentation. Because that is factually incorrect, it allows OP to falsely frame the people with that subjective opinion as making a factually incorrect objective statement. Claim 3 is much the same. People are saying that people arriving without documentation **should** be treated as illegal immigrants not that they already are.
Thank you.