Is Ireland to replace its Emigrants with Immigrants?

Polo_Mint

Considering we have a really bad track record in housing people in ireland, Im not sure if this is a good idea

Ms Fitzgerald is bringing proposals to Cabinet in response to the growing migrant crisis in the Mediterranean.
Sources said she will seek resettlement for at least 520 migrants - more than double the figure announced earlier this year.

Defence Minister Simon Coveney is also expected to brief colleagues on the work of the crew abroad LÉ Eithne, which has been involved in a number of rescue missions in recent days.

Since its deployment in the last month, the naval ship has rescued more than 1,150 people.
Most migrants embark from Libya in unsuitable crafts.
Irish Independent

wendell borton

Is crossing the med the modern equivalent of the crossing the Rhine?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine

The Diabolical Monocle

Libya needs to start getting billed for their lax border controls.
If there's no deterrent it will just be rising annual numbers.

PARlance

They'll love Mosney.

Buona Fortuna

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Libya needs to start getting billed for their lax border controls.
If there's no deterrent it will just be rising annual numbers.

The more I hear about Libya the more I think failed state.

Is there even such a mechanism? Its not like they're in any clubs with other nations that have those rules.

somesoldiers

wendell borton wrote: »

Is crossing the med the modern equivalent of the crossing the Rhine?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine

and Crossing the rubicon


http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cross+the+Rubicon

Bob24

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Libya needs to start getting billed for their lax border controls.

Good luck with billing a foreign State, let alone one that is in total anarchy and cannot even maintain its territorial integrity or have a clear political leadership.

Grayson

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

(The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome)

Tefral

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon (The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome) for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

What about the homeless in the country?? True they probably are not in mortal danger like those crossing the Med, but these people need our help too..

I have no issue with 500, but I think this is just the beginning. I lived in london, ive seen first hand what happens, integration seems to to be a problem.

We are giving money hand over fist to keep our own citizens in this country. We are paying for a warship that could be keeping our territorial waters safe. They should be towed back to Africa every time to be honest. Let them apply to be a member of our state when they can prove they have something to give and contribute.

xhoundx

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

(The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome)

I doubt many people would have any problems with 500 people that were genuine refugees.

You and me both know that it won't stop at 500 and few of them will be genuine refugees.

Valetta

cronin_j wrote: »

What about the homeless in the country?? True they probably are not in mortal danger like those crossing the Med, but these people need our help too..

I have no issue with 500, but I think this is just the beginning. I lived in london, ive seen first hand what happens, integration seems to to be a problem.

There is more than enough help for the Irish homeless.

The vast majority of them do not want to avail of it.

Chris_Heilong

There is plenty of room outside of Dublin for them, outside of maybe the 3 major cities the rest of Ireland is sparsely populated.

Valetta

PARlance wrote: »

They'll love Mosney.

Better than floating around in the Med, or drowned.

Tefral

Valetta wrote: »

There is more than enough help for the Irish homeless.

The vast majority of them do not want to avail of it.

Well thats absolute horse manure anyway!! We have a huge homeless crisis in this country.

The most recent statistics on homelessness in Ireland are from the Special Census report on homeless persons in Ireland. Of the 4.5million persons in Ireland on Census night (10th April 2011), 3,808 were in accommodation providing shelter for homeless persons or were sleeping rough. 62% (or 2,375) were living in Dublin on Census night, and 644 (17%) were under the age of 20. 15% or 553 people were non-Irish, compared to 12% of the total population. Almost one-third of homeless persons had health which was ‘Fair’, ‘Bad’ or ‘Very bad’, compared with 10% of the general population.

here is a large waiting list for local authority housing in Ireland. Over 98,000 households were in need of social housing in 2011, and 2,348 (or 2.4%) of these households were in need of housing due to homelessness.

Bob24

xhoundx wrote: »

I doubt many people would have any problems with 500 people that were genuine refugees.

You and me both know that it won't stop at 500 and few of them will be genuine refugees.

That is the thing.

Also taking them should mean having a plan to ensure the will be spread out in Irish society and expected to blend into local culture so that their kids are fully integrated rather than living all in the same ghetto where they keep their parent's culture while being frustrated themselves and rejected by a large part of the population.
Problem is that making the decision to bring them into the country is easy. What is more difficult is keeping focus on integration programs which are both generous to give people a real chance but also firm and demanding to make it clear they (and especially their kids) need to blend into local culture if this is the country they choose to live in.

Grayson

xhoundx wrote: »

I doubt many people would have any problems with 500 people that were genuine refugees.

You and me both know that it won't stop at 500 and few of them will be genuine refugees.

I'm sure most are genuine. They know how bad the crossing is. They've heard about the deaths. How many people risk their family making that kind of crossing? How desperate would you have to be to bundle your child into one of those overcrowded boats.

As for people who think we're binging over future terrorists. well that's bollocks. Most of these people are fleeing from places like Syria, Libya and Somalia. They know what the west is like, they want to be here.

Bob24

Grayson wrote: »

As for people who think we're binging over future terrorists. well that's bollocks. Most of these people are fleeing from places like Syria, Libya and Somalia.

Yeah it's true there are no terrorists in these countries ...

And even if there were, none of them could possibly think of hiding in the middle of a group of genuine refugees in order hit a target in Europe, right? Terrorists are so stupid ...

xhoundx

Grayson wrote: »

I'm sure most are genuine. They know how bad the crossing is. They've heard about the deaths. How many people risk their family making that kind of crossing? How desperate would you have to be to bundle your child into one of those overcrowded boats.

I'm sure you are wrong, they are mostly young men and are economic migrants.

somesoldiers

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

(The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome)

Rubicon in terms of a point of no return, where does it end, if more keep coming do we let more in

Grayson

cronin_j wrote: »

What about the homeless in the country?? True they probably are not in mortal danger like those crossing the Med, but these people need our help too..

I have no issue with 500, but I think this is just the beginning. I lived in london, ive seen first hand what happens, integration seems to to be a problem.

We are giving money hand over fist to keep our own citizens in this country. We are paying for a warship that could be keeping our territorial waters safe. They should be towed back to Africa every time to be honest. Let them apply to be a member of our state when they can prove they have something to give and contribute.

What about our homeless? It's not a one or another decision.

And I don't think integration will be a problem. Not with 500. We have had a pretty good track record with that. We already have hundreds of thousands of non nationals here and they're fitting in fine.

As for the slippery slope argument about where it stops, well there are problems with that that most people realise. Taking 500 doesn't mean we'll take 50,000. And even if we do, so long as it's staggered, that's ok.
50,000 at once would be a problem. We all realise that. The number of people who advocate unlimited emigration is about the same as the number who advocate a zero tolerance policy and want to kick out every foreign national. They are very few and exist on the fringes. As for taking more, that's a decision that needs to be taken at a later stage, not now.

Grayson

somesoldiers wrote: »

Rubicon in terms of a point of no return, where does it end, if more keep coming do we let more in

Taking 500 isn't a point of no return. If it was then we crossed it the first time we allowed a foreigner into the country. Saying it's like crossing the Rubicon is like saying that biscuit will make you into a tubby bastard.

Grayson

Bob24 wrote: »

Yeah it's true there are no terrorists in these countries ...

And even if there were, none of them could possibly think of hiding in the middle of a group of genuine refugees in order hit a target in Europe, right? Terrorists are so stupid ...

Ahhh... so when Europe has a problem with people going to Syria to fight for Isis, for some reason Isis have decided to send troops to fight in Europe. And they choose to send them on rickety boats that might sink. Boats that might be picked up by the military where people will be searched and then processed.

Bob24

Grayson wrote: »

And they choose to send them on rickety boats that might sink. Boats that might be picked up by the military where people will be searched and then processed.

And then be sent to Ireland after being "processed".

Do you have a better way to suggest they could use to spread-out some of their people to various European countries?


Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the boats are only loaded with terrorists, but saying no potential terrorist will be boarding them is as stupid as saying all migrants are terrorists. It is a genuine and very serious concern.

professore

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

It's called being a hypocrite. It's wanting to be seen to be generous and giving where in actual fact you don't give a f**k. And you'll hear the cries of "what about our own homeless" etc where the ones going on about that would drive over a homeless person, Irish or otherwise, in their 151-D SUV.

No doubt some will claim that they are "down in the local Simon community every night" or "I once gave €10 to a homeless person, how great am I" but they are talking c**p - so they only help Irish homeless or what? Compassion is colour blind.

professore

On a lighter note, we need some immigrants to improve the pool of players for our international football team - the current lot are dreadful.

goose2005

Grayson wrote: »

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

But hundreds of thousands of immigrants have arrived in recent years. Africa's population rises by 20 million every year and there's no reason to think the influx of immigrants will ever stop.

conorhal

Grayson wrote: »

What about our homeless? It's not a one or another decision.

And I don't think integration will be a problem. Not with 500. We have had a pretty good track record with that. We already have hundreds of thousands of non nationals here and they're fitting in fine.

As for the slippery slope argument about where it stops, well there are problems with that that most people realise. Taking 500 doesn't mean we'll take 50,000. And even if we do, so long as it's staggered, that's ok.
50,000 at once would be a problem. We all realise that. The number of people who advocate unlimited emigration is about the same as the number who advocate a zero tolerance policy and want to kick out every foreign national. They are very few and exist on the fringes. As for taking more, that's a decision that needs to be taken at a later stage, not now.

We have replaced nearly a quater of our population with foreign born and the children of foreign born inhabitants. That's not a piffling number.

Grayson

goose2005 wrote: »

But hundreds of thousands of immigrants have arrived in recent years. Africa's population rises by 20 million every year and there's no reason to think the influx of immigrants will ever stop.

That's a slippery slope argument. I'll agree that there is a limit on what we can take but we're no-where near that. If the government wanted to take 50,000 I'd be protesting. We can't afford that. Even if we could afford that we couldn't integrate that many at once.

500 a year is 20,000 over 40 years. That we can take.

Grayson

Bob24 wrote: »

And then be sent to Ireland after being "processed".

Do you have a better way to suggest they could use to spread-out some of their people to various European countries?


Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the boats are only loaded with terrorists, but saying no potential terrorist will be boarding them is as stupid as saying all migrants are terrorists. It is a genuine and very serious concern.

It's very unlikely though. The 9-11 bombers all went to the US legally and weren't refugees. If you wanted to get someone here to blow up something you'd be better off giving them a forged passport and a car on the Turkish boarder.

I think there are issues that need to be addressed but terrorism isn't one.

denhaagenite

conorhal wrote: »

We have replaced nearly a quater of our population with foreign born and the children of foreign born inhabitants. That's not a piffling number.

So? After how many generations will they actually become "Irish" to you?

People forget that Ireland took in refugees during the Kosovan crisis (who subsequently returned to Kosovo) and you know what? The country didn't burn down.

conorhal

Grayson wrote: »

That's a slippery slope argument. I'll agree that there is a limit on what we can take but we're no-where near that. If the government wanted to take 50,000 I'd be protesting. We can't afford that. Even if we could afford that we couldn't integrate that many at once.

500 a year is 20,000 over 40 years. That we can take.

we have 60,000 immigrants to this country per annum. Obviously not all or even mostly asylum applicants (which numbers at the moment at about 4,000) but the fact remains that we are indulging in population replacement and importing thousands of people that we can't facilitate.
The current housing and homlesness crisis has been met with a promise to provide 3,000 houses in the next 3 years to address the issue, that won't even house those currently in asylum reception centers currently. An yes, pretty much all of those will be getting that housing stock.

You're numbers are disingenuous also, the refer to asylum applicants currently in UN refugee camps (who would bypass the asylum system as pre approved refugees), it has no baring on those crossing the med (90,000 so far this year) or those crosing over land which are multiples of that number. Of those the EU would like us to take a percentage. Nor does it refer to those currently here in direct provision. you need to be building 5,000 homes a year just to accomodate those currently arriving here.

conorhal

denhaagenite wrote: »

So? After how many generations will they actually become "Irish" to you?

People forget that Ireland took in refugees during the Kosovan crisis (who subsequently returned to Kosovo) and you know what? The country didn't burn down.

The question isn't how many generations will it take for them to become Irish but rather, how many generations will it take before Ireland is no longer Irish?

AS for the Kosovans, a small number came, some left after the war, how many Nigerians, Somalis, Afghans, Syrians ect are likely to actually 'go home'?

Nodin

conorhal wrote: »

The question isn't how many generations will it take for them to become Irish but rather, how many generations will it take before Ireland is no longer Irish?
...............?

Yeah, just look at the way we've started talking polish.....

Wolf Club

As long as it is staggered and the people coming in are integrated well, I don't see there being a problem with this. Ireland is one of the most sparsely populated countries in Europe, surely if there was a proper procedure set up for refugees to come to this country, be looked after short term but eventually work, pay taxes and integrate it would benefit the country long term?

Tefral

Grayson wrote: »

What about our homeless? It's not a one or another decision.

Yes it is. We have a certain amount of money that both you and I pay from our taxes. This helps amongst other things the most vulnerable in our society. The homeless in this country might have once paid taxes or their parents have, they have a right to be looked after first.

We are not a rich nation, we cant afford to look after ourselves without borrowing money, we cant just be throwing it at someone elses problems. 500 people might not seem like a lot, but where you going to put them? We don't even have the housing stock for our own working people. What if they don't speak English? How are they supposed to work here? How will they integrate with the communities they are put in?

Yes you might argue that we are all on this planet together but if I wanted to go to Oz or Canada in the morning, id need to prove my worth and integrate with the local population.

Theres a massive refugee camp down the road from where my parents are from and they are holed away. You cant even drive near the place before security are out to you.

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, just look at the way we've started talking polish.....

Its the second most spoken Language in Ireland according to the last Census

denhaagenite

conorhal wrote: »

The question isn't how many generations will it take for them to become Irish but rather, how many generations will it take before Ireland is no longer Irish?

AS for the Kosovans, a small number came, some left after the war, how many Nigerians, Somalis, Afghans, Syrians ect are likely to actually 'go home'?

AFAIK, all of them left after the war. These people have been displaced because of a genuine war and I can't understand why they would want to live in Ireland after the homes they have fled have been made safe again. I have to agree that the asylum process needs to be changed so that applications can be processed quicker and bogus claims thrown out.

Can't Ireland and being Irish evolve? I just spent six months in the country and of all the things I didn't like, I can't honestly count the new diversity as one of them.

The Diabolical Monocle

Grayson wrote: »

That's a slippery slope argument. I'll agree that there is a limit on what we can take but we're no-where near that. If the government wanted to take 50,000 I'd be protesting. We can't afford that. Even if we could afford that we couldn't integrate that many at once.

500 a year is 20,000 over 40 years. That we can take.

But would you say that if you were on a trolley or waiting 12 hours in a+e like some folks in this country.

denhaagenite

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

But would you say that if you were on a trolley or waiting 12 hours in a+e like some folks in this country.

That has nothing to do with population, homelessness or asylum seekers. Ditto the housing crisis. It's just bad management.

LiamWalsh95

I do part time work at weekends in shop.. Boss man hired a polish immigrant who had little understanding of the language and didn't understand the euro currency.. Only reason he hired him was because of cheap labour. Foreign nationals are more often than not willing to work for less than what us citizens are.

conorhal

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, just look at the way we've started talking polish.....

It has a better claim to be a second national language than Irish does........

Galwayguy35

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

(The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome)

And what do we do with these 520 people who probably have little or no English and a poor education?

Just put them on welfare for the rest of their lives?

It just seems to be rewarding people for acting outside the immigration laws of the various countries they will be settled in.

MathDebater

Grayson wrote: »

I'm sure most are genuine. They know how bad the crossing is. They've heard about the deaths. How many people risk their family making that kind of crossing? How desperate would you have to be to bundle your child into one of those overcrowded boats.

The majority are economic migrants.

Both major studies found that the Africans who get onto the boats are not running from something awful, but running toward a specific, chosen opportunity, in employment or small business.

That’s a big reason that the boat-people flows have gone up and down so dramatically: Dr. de Haas’s studies found that the main driver of cross-Mediterranean migration is not any economic or political factor in Africa but “sustained demand [in Europe] for cheap labour in agriculture, services, and other informal sectors.” Even those who are fleeing – the Syrians, some Eritreans – are choosing where they flee based on a sense of opportunity.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-real-reasons-why-migrants-risk-everything-for-a-new-life-elsewhere/article24105000/

Grayson wrote:

As for people who think we're binging over future terrorists. well that's bollocks. Most of these people are fleeing from places like Syria, Libya and Somalia. They know what the west is like, they want to be here.

Norwegian authorities have revealed that several Middle East refugees set to be granted asylum in Norway under a UN program have links to the Islamic State and Nusra Front extremist groups, media reported on Monday.

"Unfortunately, there are people who try to exploit and abuse the refugee system. We have uncovered some quota refugees with links to the Nusra Front and the ISIL," police superintendent Svein Erik Molstad said, as quoted by the Dagbladet newspaper.

http://rt.com/news/264021-isis-norway-refugees-un/

ISIS have used the quota resettlement programme to slip into Norway. They got past the UN. Thankfully they didn't get past the Norwegian police. Do you have as much faith in our lads to weed out potential terrorists?

beanie10

If "we" decide to take these immigrants it would be a Dublin decision in all fairness. So as far as I'm concerned you can keep the sh1t in the septic tank. Thank you very much!

Nodin

cronin_j wrote: »

Its the second most spoken Language in Ireland according to the last Census

And are we, the native born irish, speaking it?

The Diabolical Monocle

denhaagenite wrote: »

That has nothing to do with population, homelessness or asylum seekers. Ditto the housing crisis. It's just bad management.

Course it does. They both come under expense.

You plan on housing these new arrivals surely, caring for their health, filing their paperwork, educating them, putting some cash in their pockets.

Ask the people already in difficulty in this country how that money should be spent.
Surely they count for something too.

MathDebater

Grayson wrote: »

As for the slippery slope argument about where it stops, well there are problems with that that most people realise. Taking 500 doesn't mean we'll take 50,000. And even if we do, so long as it's staggered, that's ok.

It most certainly will not be ok. Staggered or no.

Where will they work? We already have 400k residents unemployed. People who largely would be a lot more educated than these migrants.

Where will they live? There's not an abundance of viable social housing in the state. We have circa 100k on the housing list and nearly a third of them are non Irish as things stand.

They will require more healthcare than your average Irish resident. The last thing our health service needs is a large number of new patients from the developing world. 100 year old ladies are spending 20 plus hours on trollies. It's a mess and this will only exasperate the problem.

Also, who shall pony up the dough to pay for all this?

denhaagenite

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Course it does. They both come under expense.

You plan on housing these new arrivals surely, caring for their health, filing their paperwork, educating them, putting some cash in their pockets.

Ask the people already in difficulty in this country how that money should be spent.
Surely they count for something too.

That's nothing but emotional blackmail. Of course there is a cost, but if the health service insist on overspending on consultant wages, brand name pharmaceuticals etc etc then that is where the fault lies, not with a few extra people who would probably be placed in areas where there isn't a housing or health crisis at the moment. There are always going to be people in difficulty but a few temporary extras will have absolutely no affect on them whatsoever.

Gatling

The government need to put Us first and foremost.
We don't need anymore poorly educated economic migrants.
Fix our problems leave Africa and Libya to its own .
We've spent how many billions over the last 30 odd years on Africa .

Precious flower

Grayson wrote: »

It's strange how people who are otherwise charitable can have a double think on issues like this. I was discussing the migrants with my family and they were against us taking them.

Every year my family puts candles in every window of the house on christmas eve. It's supposed to be a welcome for any travellers/homeless people who are wandering with no place to stay. So that unlike Mary and Joseph they will not be turned away everywhere and will have somewhere to stay.

That's what this is. These people need help. What kind of people would we be if we said no.

500 people is nothing. It's hardly compared with barbarian hoards crossing the Rhine or the Rubicon for that matter. We can afford 500. We couldn't afford 500,000 or even 50,000.

(The Rubicon is a false analogy. It refers to Roman troops crossing the Rubicon. The legions were never allowed in Rome itself. They always had to stay on the other side of the Rubicon This was to prevent a general from taking over Rome with his troops. Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops when he took over Rome)

I have never believed in this whole thing of the government should be looking after use first blah blah. We are human beings and in our time of need we expected people to come to our aid. We do a disservice to ourselves by seeing things as us against them situation. I just feel that shouldn't we be dealing with the people in those detention centres first before we go bringing 500 other fleeing migrants in? Is it not unfair to allow them in when we haven't even dealt with the people trying to get processed or are these migrants to end up in these detention centres first? We need to have proper measures in place first, or I can tell you we will end up having ghettos similar to France and other places. These people in detention centres want to contribute and want to become part of our community but the way the governments processes them by the time they are cleared they will have very little job prospects not to mention stunted education and moral. You can't just lock people up and give them a meagre amount of money and no motivation. That system needs t be looked at again and overhauled before we can accept more I think.

denhaagenite

Can't agree with this enough, in theory I don't disagree with direct provision but the government needs to deal with finding a better and faster way to process asylum claims. Look at the Pamela Izevbekhai case, an absolute joke the amount of times her claim was appealed with no evidence to warrant those appeals.

MathDebater

I just feel that shouldn't we be dealing with the people in those detention centres first before we go bringing 500 other fleeing migrants in? Is it not unfair to allow them in when we haven't even dealt with the people trying to get processed or are these migrants to end up in these detention centres first? 

'Detention centres' that people can leave at any time they so wish. Good one. The state isn't holding them there against their will. The people in the asylum centres have received a decision within six months of lodging their asylum claim. Problem for them is, it's not one that they are happy with so they enter the appeals process. The vast majority of them are bogus. 800 residents are currently fighting their deportation orders in the High Court. Bit rich of them then to complain that they are so long in the system.