Immigration to Ireland - policies, challenges, and solutions *Read OP before posting*

He had the choice of either going when he did or being held for a few days and then forcibly deported. He was still escorted to his seat by immigration personnel who saw to it that he got onto the plane, into his seat and did not get off the plane. The fact that he was compliant, according to him, meant that he did not need to be cuffed.

Citizens information website? I would advise always reading the laws regarding such things

You think the information on that Government funded website whose purpose is to advise citizens is wrong?

500 asylum seekers coming to the d hotel Drogheda, the Westgate is gone a year or more to Ukrainians.

Can any tourists please not bother with Ireland anymore, ye are not worth the hassle. Can any tourist related businesses pack it in n if your premises is suitable for bunk beds someone will be out with the chequebook.

Thanks in advance.

You do know I was talking about people who have been processed and accepted?

Did you not read the post or the comments leading up to it, before posting?

I'm not sure, why some people on boards want to facilitate illegal entry into Ireland, and also defend it?

Yeah but he's not claiming asylum man — he's a guy with a business who got turned away at the border for not complying with the rules and would have had pretty much zero incentive to do anything other than just accept it and go home. This is a completely different circumstance from someone who is desperate enough to enter that they will claim asylum, will likely not co-operate voluntarily, may have travelled through another safe country that wo n't take him back, and it is proving difficult to establish contact with a relevant authority in another country that will co-operate to take this guy back.

Do you not see the massive distinction here between the relative ease of removal in the first example and relative difficulty of removal in the second?

Basically there is,

15. (1) Subject to sections 21 and 22 , a person who has attained the age of 18 years and who is at the frontier of the State or who is in the State (whether lawfully or unlawfully) may make an application for international protection—

Schedule 1 of the same act incorporates the Convention relating to the status of refugees( Geneva) article 27 of which states,

'The contracting states shall issue identify papers to any refugee in their territory who does not posses a valid travel document'

Which, if you think about it reasonably, makes perfect sense, someone fleeing probably doesn't have time to be applying for passports, or perhaps there is no functioning government visited on order to get a passport.

He wasnt claiming asylum though?

I'm proposing off shoring prisoners in general, not just failed asylum seekers that we can't deport for whatever reason. Off shoring such service is common in other markets, even state operated ones such as HealthCare.

From the briefing document....

“Ireland is legally required under EU law to provide accommodation for people seeking international protection here."

As I've pointed out several times in this thread we had a derogation under the Lisbon treaty to allow us to opt out of taking any refugees. And theres no point in referring to the 1951 Geneva convention, the statement specifically references EU law. Local businesses in Drogheda can already wave goodbye to the summer tourist season.

No it does not. You clearly didn't read the link I provided to section 15 of the International Protection Act, which refers to persons applying for international protection.

It seems his other choice was not to leave but to be placed in indefinite holding, or perhaps moved to one of Australia's offshore holding centers.

Indefinite holding has been deemed illegal and from what I can gather offshore detention didn't work out as easy as it looked either.

From that article a quote from the Australian Department of Home Affairs.

And a quote on what's actually happened with offshore detention, speaking about the closure of one of the facilities.

How effective was it?

TLDR: Those who can't be turned back, or 'refused entry', from Australia were sent to offshore centers. These turned out to be hugely expensive and barbaric. Eventually those still in the centers were given permanent residence either officially or in essence.

Agree.

But each country can choose how they wish to treat people who break the law which requires documentation at point of entry. We are not breaking international laws by enforcing that.

I do think that detention should be employed until a person either applies for asylum or identity /country of origin is confirmed.

This would actively discourage those who are not real refugees but are econmic refugees or being trafficked.

I don't like the idea of detention at all, but if there were growing centres at airports and ports it could concentrate the minds of government and others to deal with issues that otherwise seem to be being ignored or down the list of priorities.

You have to admit there are are people coming in to the country with no documentation who dissappear.

This is a potential organised crime / trafficking market and we ( Europe) are being seen whether we like it or not as a soft touch.

It is not right that our government is apparently ignoring this or minimising it.

Obviously the traffickers are the ones they need to catch but if those peope who are trafficked slip through the net we are failing potentially vulnerable people as well not to mention encouraging ocg.

Even better facial recognition cameras and scan copy of passport.

So if you've no passport when you arrive at border control there's a valid scan copy on the computer.

No great leap in technology required there.