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

While it’s true that many asylum seekers arrive without proper documentation, this is not unique to Ireland. It’s a well-documented global phenomenon in refugee movements and has been for a very long time.

People arriving without proper documentation as you say is not unique to Ireland. Well, quite frankly I don't give two continental hoots if they rock up to [insert another city airport here] and don't have proper papers, that is up to [again, insert name of another city airport here] to square that circle. Just because idiocrasy is tolerated in [again, insert name of another city airport here] doesn't mean that we have to 'ape' and do a Ctrl+V on that process too.

Countries have systems in place, including interviews, biometric data collection (like fingerprints), and cross-checking databases to verify claims.

This is demonstrably false. While there is some sharing of data amongst EU member states the vast majority of Asylum Seekers come from beyond the EU borders as you know only too well. The level of data-sharing from nations beyond the EU borders is minimal, and also from nations who are hostile to the EU member states as a default position - so getting data on a rapist/murderer/scammer from beyond EU borders is basically mission impossible. It has been demonstrated many times on this conversation that bad actors from beyond the EU borders are exploiting the system to gain entry to EU nations under false pretences. This is an alarming security risk for our citizens.

Asylum seekers still have the right to apply for protection under international law, regardless of how they enter the country.

And we have an absolute right to refuse them. They can apply all day, just like you can apply for a mortgage on a €8.5m property in Dalkey while on minimum wage (don't expect an offer letter anytime soon). The Irish state is the ultimate decision-maker in the process, and quite frankly the Irish state system in it's current construct is abysmally failing in it's duty.

Applicants go through a robust vetting process under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This includes fingerprinting, interviews, and data-sharing between EU countries to check for previous asylum claims or criminal records.

Again, you present this 'politician's promise' style dogma as some sort of 'Authority' on the processes involved. The system used is tragically outdated, with the decision makers ultimately living in a state of fear over rejecting a claim for fear of being demonised as a far-right racist from the heavily funded left-wing open-borders NGO complex. It has been proven time and time again that the system is far removed from anything resembling "robust" when the scope of such 'vetting' is only to check if someone from outside the EU has dirtied their bib inside the EU. Most of the time, applicants have spent very little time in the EU to build up any sort of record anyways.

The return figures may seem low, but the focus should be on ensuring fair legal processes for each case.

What is the point in rules at all then? I for one, don't think that legal representatives should be allowed to use said Asylum Seeker to continually bring up half-baked arguments in order to invoice the Irish taxpayer for another Saturday night sesh or line of charlie. One appeal - lose that, get out and by force too.

In conclusion, while some data points you mention are accurate, they are being misinterpreted or used to frame asylum seekers unfairly. Ireland’s asylum system is designed to manage undocumented arrivals in line with international obligations.

It's amazing how some can come on here and defend the current system as 'grand' and 'functioning normally'. Every man, woman, child and dog on the street knows it's a sham. The latest opinion polls on the migration and asylum seeker system show that 3 in every 4 of Irish adults think the system as it stands is utter crap.

Perhaps you're connected in some way to the current system that is designed to reward a handpicked few that benefit from endless appeals (legal profession) to the increasing accommodation requirements (former hotel owners, etc…) and would pounce harshly on any attempts to call the current (very financially rewarding system for some) into question.

LOLs, sent back! Yeah right. How did Helen McEntee ever arrive at the arbitrary figure of 17,000 when she summarised the amount of 'undocumented' migrants in Ireland during the last amnesty? Surely, no permission to enter and sent back would mean that the system you describe could never amount to such numbers in the first place?

You do realise that regardless of being refused leave to enter that these people are openly flouting the law and there is little to no enforcement of the rules.

Agree, the system needs to be improved. Peter Dube was not a criminal mastermind, just a fugitive car dealer suspected of a triple murder.

I 100% would not suggest that it is common but at face value, it suggests the system is open for abuse and needs to be strengthened as you suggest.

What would you do to strengthen the system?

What happens if they are refused leave to enter and then claim asylum?

I think it is an attempt to get everyone to stop following the thread, and it has largely worked for me - will be quiet until the next controversial site is planted.

Expect no media coverage until after the election.

No their not, they are fraudsters. They try one way and failed and then claimed asylum. Fraudsters. If they genuine asylum seekers they wouldn't be trying to get in on false passports nor would they be travelling through multiple safe countries to get to here to claim asylum, they would claim asylum in a safe country close to their own.

The law is the law.

Jesus wept. The law as it stands is not being implemented. If it were, we wouldn't have half the mess that the system currently is.

The law also needs to be upgraded/strengthened to reflect the challenges of the Asylum Seeker system in today's world. That 1951 Geneva Convention needs a serious overhaul. Perhaps a few large countries will start the ball rolling by threatening withdrawal from it or force a rewrite of it.