Ireland's Refugee Policy cont. Please read OP before posting

Will be interesting to see if the topic of illegal immigration comes up in the election debates.

They are putting over 400 of them into Sligo town.

This is a town that has already accepted a lot. This building was earmarked for students and Simon Harris previously said putting AS in accommodation meant for students was "grubby". To me it stinks to high heaven and is yet another symptom of how this racket has been made so attractive to hotel owners. I'm not the only one thinking this and another FG commentator effectively said as much though I can't find a link.

Roderick is getting the blame for this and FG and trying to distance themselves from it.

Also Gortahork in rural Donegal is going to be receiving a bunch as well. The hotel used to be owned by someone close to the locals. Since his death some faceless company has bought it as is doing this to the local community.

There's some comments on this link from a local FG politician if anyone cares to have a listen.

https://www.oceanfm.ie/2024/10/18/housing-of-asylum-seekers-at-benbulben-court-in-sligo-embarrassing-says-td/

But Roderick should get the blame and rightly so. It’s his budget and his decision. Apart from the fact that any any dwelling or building can be turned into an IPAS centre overnight he rides roughshod of any community that objects or voices any concerns. So Roderick should pay the ultimate penalty for this. I will dance to high heaven if this fella looses his seat and the brain melters on here lose their ****. Imo he is toxic. And don’t care what anyone says that this is a whole of government decision it’s his worldview playing out in real time. The only one happy are the three supporters on here and the immigration NGO’s and the new multi millionaire hotel owners.

Don’t care. Anyone but O’Gorman. FG / FF / SF / SD / L / Ind. Anyone but him.

oh i’ve thought this through so don’t fret my friend. You see right now I want to direct my anger and frustration. So Roderick will do. I’m fairness, he deserves it. He took to this task like a fish to water. With real zeal. I suppose international obligation supersedes everything doesn’t it? And yes, there will be variations and maybe a direct continuation… but the longer this goes the harder this will fall. And it will fall. The endless pot of money that seems to be there will eventually dry up. At that stage the hoteliers will have made their millions and everyone else that has skin this racket will have made a nice few quid. But for now to see Roddy loose his seat, that will do for me.

Producing fake/false documents to gain entry to this state is a crime. Those then turning to claim asylum when caught out is taking the mickey.

We need to pass tough laws on this and implement them ferociously. If that breaks some international agreement, screw it - we're a sovereign nation, not some assembly beholden to anyone else.

If some other countries (which I doubt) look unfavourably on this - who cares. The only ones looking unfavourably on this would be some cabal like the WEF or the UN who really are only fronts for agenda pushers.

The claim that producing false documents to enter Ireland and then claiming asylum is "taking the mickey" oversimplifies the legal protections in place for asylum seekers. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, asylum seekers often flee dangerous situations where obtaining legitimate travel documents is impossible. International law recognizes this and protects their right to seek asylum even if they entered a country using irregular means, such as false papers. Penalizing people solely for this would undermine their right to protection, as many refugees have no other way to escape persecution or conflict.

The suggestion to "screw" international agreements and pass ferocious laws against asylum seekers also disregards the role of these agreements in maintaining global order and human rights. Treaties such as the Refugee Convention and other international accords exist to share the responsibility of protecting vulnerable people across nations. Breaking these agreements would not only damage Ireland’s reputation but could also lead to diplomatic isolation and economic consequences. Sovereignty does not mean acting in isolation but rather participating in a global community with shared values and responsibilities.

The reference to a "cabal" involving the World Economic Forum (WEF) or the United Nations (UN) as agenda-pushers promoting immigration feeds into conspiracy theories that are unsupported by evidence. These organizations are primarily focused on global cooperation, economic stability, and peace, not secretive control. Conspiracy theories like this are often vague and misleading, diverting attention from real policy discussions. It’s worth asking: Who specifically is this "cabal" and what proof exists of their influence on Ireland's immigration laws? Such claims only serve to create unnecessary fear and misunderstanding without grounding in fact, leading to the conclusion that the spreaders of this conspiracy are knowingly spreading false information for their own goals or have been unfortunate enough to have fallen victim to false information unknowingly. In either case, it's pretty sad.

The UN created the 1951 Geneva Convention - it massively influences Irish immigration laws - such as the IP Act 2015 as clearly stated by non other than your good self a few posts back.

So, I fail to see the 'conspiracy' there, rather I see efforts by some here to gaslight and hand-weave away any arguments for strict immigration controls and tightened laws around Asylum Seekers to be implemented.

ROG is a Green. The Greens in general believe the world is over populated and this is leading to massive environmental damage and contributing to climate change.

Yet his pro-migration policies and stance are at odds with his environmental policies and stance! It is fair to say that most people who have migrated to Ireland will take regular trips back to their country of origin. It is also fair to say that virtually none of these trips will be done on bicycle.

The Greens, if true to their words and core beliefs, should be one of the most strictest on the movement of people. They champion 15-minute cities, rural depopulation, yet 1500 km airline trips are fine!

The argument that Roderic O’Gorman's pro-migration stance contradicts the Green Party’s environmental policies is based on a misunderstanding of the party's approach to sustainability and migration. The Green Party’s core focus is on reducing environmental harm, and while population growth can contribute to environmental challenges, their policies advocate for systemic solutions like transitioning to renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions, and creating sustainable infrastructure—solutions that benefit both native populations and migrants. Migration itself is not inherently at odds with environmental goals, and people moving across borders doesn’t automatically increase environmental degradation. In fact, many Green policies aim to create environments where all residents, including immigrants, can live sustainably.

Reducing air travel emissions is a goal for the Greens, but it does not mean preventing migration. Instead, the Green Party advocates for reducing the carbon footprint of travel through policy changes like encouraging the use of electric vehicles, promoting sustainable energy sources for transportation, and improving public transport infrastructure. They also champion international climate agreements that focus on global emission reductions, not restricting the movement of people. The reference to "15-minute cities" and rural depopulation conflates urban planning efforts with migration control, when in reality, 15-minute cities aim to reduce the need for car travel by making essential services accessible within short distances—policies that benefit all residents, migrants included.

The argument that asylum seekers and migrants contribute significantly to environmental damage due to travel overlooks an important distinction: asylum seekers fleeing war and persecution generally do not travel back to their countries of origin. This is because returning to those countries often poses serious risks to their safety. Asylum seekers are typically focused on resettling in a safe country where they can rebuild their lives, and their movements are often restricted during the asylum process. Thus, the environmental impact of frequent international travel is much more applicable to other travelers, not to those fleeing conflict or danger. A lot of different types of migrants/expats —including Irish emigrants—do often travel back to their countries of origin, and it is important to acknowledge that this kind of travel is not unique to one group.

The idea that the Greens should limit migration based on environmental concerns simplifies the complex relationship between migration, climate policy, and sustainability. Immigration policies can coexist with environmental goals when approached holistically, addressing both human needs and ecological impact.

Roderick tweeted in various languages that he hoped to hand all asylum seekers the key to their own pad within 6 months of arriving here. At the same time the Brits were on about sending theirs to Rwanda. The rest is history.

Hopefully Roderick will be history in a few months, we'll pick up the tab for his legacy. The refugee industry and it's shills can hold a candlelight vigil for their hero.