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

So, I'm the one claiming superiority on a thread where people do nothing but talk about how others are traitorous, treacherous, woke Leftie liberals who hate Ireland? Or about how the government is so stupid and there are easy solutions that we just refuse to implement?

I mean, you said it in your own post — you lauded the German proposal and then went on to complain about how lefties make it out to be all so difficult and impossible. That is the arrogance that is inherent on this thread day in day out — the people who disagree with you are just Lefties who obfuscate the easy paths. And you say I'm acting superior, when you summarily dismiss the views of others?

The point of my response to you — which you seem mystified by — was to point out to you that these little measures here and there should not be applauded at every turn because they fail to actually address the fundamental issue at hand. In fact — you haven't even disputed any of the argument I put forward as to why the logic, or at least the effectiveness, of the German proposals doesn't really seem to get us anywhere.

So yes, let's all stop being Lefties who make everything out to be impossible and let's copy the Germans. Let's clamp down on asylum seekers by......offering them food and shelter. That's really tough and that will absolutely deter people.

Ah yes, "virtue signalling" — another term spouted out to dismiss the sincerity or rationale of the views of others. And yet I'm the one acting superior apparently.

Anyway, I find your logic odd here in that you seem to take the view that those who make the migration journey using money for flights etc must invariably be doing alright for themselves if they can afford it. Are we to presume that you just wholesale dismiss the possibility that people save for these flights over periods of time or simply gather the money from somewhere, like wider family, on the basis that getting to Europe etc may well be the primary ambition of their life? For many of them, this will be the one thing they dedicate all their efforts and every penny they own to. You seem to view it almost like its just disposable income they are spending on getting to Europe, when it could well be the case that its their life savings.

Secondly, you also seem to just dismiss the fact that we already know what the major channels of illegal migration into Europe by land and sea are. We know that the migrants using these channels are willing to take enormous risks to follow these paths and clearly do not have the means to take less risky paths.

But in either case, what you don't seem to address is that — whether they have more money or less money, whether you put them in the Shelbourne or the place in Dundrum they apparently aren't happy about, neither situation presents a scenario where there is really anything to lose. You shoot your shot getting to Europe and worst case scenario, after roughing it for however long, you'll at least get fed, watered and sheltered and you'll be somewhere relatively secure. It's not really as tough as it sounds.

Exactly. And at that point, when you actively commence a policy of depriving asylum seekers of any food and shelter, then we will see if the common sense, hard logic Right really is all that different from the emotional, sentimental, woke Lefties — when it comes to sustaining a policy like that over many years.

The flag doesn't belong to the Covid conspiracists / anti-immigration crowd. If they are weaponizing the tricolour and claiming to be more Irish than the rest of us, that is not a good thing.

Weaponising the Tricolour?

Jesus, get a grip.

Americans flying the flag are classed as Trump supporters, British people flying the Union Flag are all Tommy Robinson supporters and now people flying the tricolour are Covid Conspiacists / Anti-Immigration? It's almost as if people want to portray people who are proud of their country as terrible people and stop them from voicing their opinion so they won't be lumped into a stupid category that doesn't represtent their beliefs.

But people flying a Ukranian or Palestian flag are ok I take it?

It's ILLEGAL immigration and bogus asylum seekers that the vast majority of people have an issue with. But to say that is enough for silly people to class you as some weird racist/conspiracy theorist.

Once again, people get very excited on this thread about responding to points that were never made. Strazdas never said that people who fly the tricolour are Covid conspiracists or anti immigration — they said the flag doesn't belong to them, based on the very demonstrable fact that tricolours tend(ed) to be pretty numerous at those types of protests etc.

I'm presuming though you'll somehow interpret this post as me calling you a racist or something.

There should be some sort of secure detainment facility as large as it needs to be near the airport. If someone is a guest in this country and breaks the law in this manner like breaking in to property, assault etc they should be taken there to wait while deportation is organised for as long as it takes.

We shouldn't accept criminality like this regardless of the circumstances.

It's like we have pretty much no red lines.

Nope. I correctly quoted him.

Where are you getting this from though? Who is telling you that being proud of the tricolour is a bad thing?

You say you're proud to be Irish but really the vast majority of Irish people are proud to be Irish — some may simply be less vocal and expressive about it. Some people find the use of the tricolour in certain circumstances to cheapen its meaning or to be a hijacking of it, particularly when it's used in the context of divisive issues. One is allowed to have that opinion without being subjected to some accusation that they think being proud of the flag is wrong.

But yet, that's still the interpretation you take, and it actually backs up what I'm saying here — what you are trying to do is create a mentality where one side is proud to be Irish and the other side is self-hating and detests pride in Irishness. Maybe you aren't even doing it deliberately, and it's part of how you justify your beliefs in your head — you are proud to be Irish and they aren't and therefore your beliefs are more trustworthy as regards Ireland's interests.

And I fear that you will read this and still just believe that you are being told flying the flag is bad.

To be explicit , I doubt the child slaves of the Congo, who are probably most deserving of assistance, have the money to travel to Ireland. That's not to say those genuinely seeking asylum are not worthy too but rather to point out there are likely considerable costs involved.

You seem to think because someone risks their life and spends their money they should be entitled to free accommodation and food in Ireland regardless of whether or not they are genuine asylum seekers or economic migrants using the asylum route.

Okay...😶‍🌫️

You're so close to becoming self aware. You're agreeing there's no deterrent for people who choose to come here illegally.

There's an infinite number of these people across the 3rd world. Now do the math and just make that small step that you think is a giant leap.

We need proper deterrents before we get overwhelmed(if we're not already).

Well I'm slightly confused here as, if you were at all familiar with my posts, the difficulty of formulating effective deterrents to illegal migration more or less underpins almost every post I have ever written on this topic. It's the very reason why I tend to criticise those who make out that it all comes down to Lefties and that so-called common sense solutions could solve the problems.

The problem is that the Right — when all is said and done, and as we have already seen with Right leaning governments time and time again — is no more willing to implement the "proper deterrents" than the Left is. They'll implement measures here and there of varying effect, but the people keep coming — and generally the ebbs and flows of migration have more to do with global events than any policy.

So it brings me back to my point that there is a distinct lack of true sincere honesty among many who talk about migration, because when talking about how hard we need to be on it, they never actually really set out their own limit on how far they are willing to go to minimise it. And if they don't do that, then you can never actually tell if they really have any vision for migration at all, when they have no idea how far they would be willing to go.

OK so you say that if people arrive on our shores illegally — they will be treated with "hostility". So what does that mean, in practice?

All the stuff about detaining them as criminals, is all well and good. But you end up detaining them in dedicated centres which, grim as they may be, for many they represent at the very least a bed, food and shelter — and the possibility of eventually being allowed out into society.

In any of your given solutions there, migrants still have a chance to get their foot in the door. Where there is the chance, people are going to take it because they will deem that they have very little to lose by trying.

If people — particularly Right leaning politicians and commentators, and indeed a lot of posters here — were actually more honest about this, it would open the path to a better discussion on immigration and actual feasible consensus between Left and Right. Instead — it's just the age old finger-point at Lefties and the constant trotting out of simplistic solutions that dishonestly evade practical examination or admission of flaw — because that would just make them the same as Lefties, and that won't do as Lefties are stupider and less common sense-er.

Well, it's pretty obvious from your last paragraph that you have no idea what I'm trying to say as it has absolutely no relevance to any opinion I have expressed whatsoever.

But anyway — what's that you say about criminality? It sounds like when it comes to crime you are able to talk about how it is inevitable and that all we can do is try to have measures that deter it? And presumably you also feel that the tolerance of a certain level of crime is probably a necessary component of upholding other things we want from our society — namely things like freedom, privacy, rights of individuals versus the State etc. Yes?

So why is it so difficult for you or other people on this thread to apply the same nuances to illegal migration or asylum seeking and to actually be honest as to the fact that — just like the Left — you have no answer to the inevitability of illegal migration and to be honest about what downsides and sacrifices your proposed measures would require, just as our current migration policies have downsides.

But as I have found on this thread, the name of the game is to say: Left stupid, Roderic stupid, we should do this, problem solved, no downsides only upsides.