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

You are implying several things that I will take in turn. First, that asylum seekers arriving without proper documentation poses a unique or insurmountable challenge for Ireland. In reality, the situation is far more complex, and this issue is not isolated to Ireland. Many asylum seekers fleeing conflict, persecution, or violence may not have time to obtain or bring proper documents. Destruction or loss of documents is common during such perilous journeys. International human rights laws, to which Ireland is a signatory, mandate that individuals must have their asylum claims fairly assessed, regardless of whether they arrive with identity documents. These laws ensure that people fleeing from dangerous situations can seek protection, even if they cannot meet standard entry requirements.

You also suggest that there is little to no information sharing between EU countries and nations outside the EU, which undermines Ireland’s ability to vet asylum seekers. However, the EU operates systems like the Eurodac database, which tracks fingerprints of asylum seekers and those crossing borders without permission across member states. This allows authorities to cross-check applicants’ identities. Moreover, Ireland collaborates with other international agencies to verify claims when possible, and the vetting process includes interviews, background checks, and the collection of biometric data. The claim that Ireland is unaware of whether a person has committed crimes or poses security risks is overstated, as there are multiple safeguards in place to protect both Ireland’s security and the rights of those seeking asylum.

The idea that asylum seekers are “exploiting” the system is also unsupported. A small minority of asylum claims may be fraudulent, but the majority are made by people in desperate need of protection. Asylum systems around the world are designed to thoroughly assess claims through a multi-step process that includes interviews, background checks, and appeals. The fact that some applicants may fail to meet the requirements for protection and appeal their cases is a legal right, not evidence of exploitation. It’s misleading to suggest that these appeals are simply a means to exploit the system. Legal representation ensures that applicants receive a fair hearing and are not wrongly denied their right to asylum.

As for the assertion that there’s a conspiracy between legal professionals and other entities to financially benefit from the asylum system, this is pure conjecture. There’s no evidence to support the claim that the system is designed to enrich a “handpicked few.” The reality is that immigration law is complex, and legal professionals provide necessary services to ensure that individuals’ rights are respected. Rejecting this process would undermine the rule of law. Furthermore, linking the asylum system to the financial gain of “former hotel owners” is a cynical attempt to frame a humanitarian issue as a financial one, ignoring the ethical and legal obligations to provide shelter and support to those fleeing persecution.

Finally, the comparison to historical cases like the abuse scandals in Ireland is deeply flawed and inappropriate. Comparing the legitimate legal processes in place for asylum seekers with the cover-ups of abuse scandals in the past diminishes the seriousness of both issues. The current asylum system may not be perfect, but it is grounded in international law, transparency, and oversight—unlike the secretive and deeply harmful practices that enabled the abuse scandals. Conflating these two issues is misleading and inflammatory.

You have certainly lived a sheltered life if you consider that statement to racist,

The claim that people arriving in Ireland are "purely economic migrants, benefit tourists, chancers, spoofers" seeking financial gain rather than genuine asylum is not based on the reality of international migration patterns and asylum law. Many of those fleeing to Europe, including Ireland, are escaping violence, war, persecution, and serious human rights abuses. According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), most asylum seekers arriving in Europe come from countries facing significant instability, such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia, where threats to life and safety are profound​

Ireland is legally obligated under international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, to provide refuge to individuals fleeing persecution.

Additionally, the idea that they arrive from "a dozen safe countries" is a misconception. While some asylum seekers may pass through countries perceived as "safe," this does not automatically disqualify them from seeking protection in Ireland. Many people do not feel safe in transit countries due to local hostility, lack of basic rights, or ongoing threats related to their original persecution. Moreover, the vast majority of asylum seekers in Ireland are found to have credible claims; dismissing them as mere "benefit tourists" ignores the trauma and danger many have endured. The asylum process involves thorough vetting and investigations, including interviews and documentation verification, to ensure that only those with legitimate claims are granted protection.

The idea that Ireland imports individuals involved in harmful practices like female genital mutilation (FGM) is a gross distortion of facts. In reality, Ireland has strong laws against FGM, and campaigns actively work to prevent it and provide support to victims. Moreover, those fleeing countries where practices like FGM occur are often victims seeking safety, not perpetrators bringing such customs with them.

SIEPR

Your initial sarcastic remark highlights the racially charged undertones present in discussions about asylum seekers, which can often perpetuate harmful stereotypes. The sarcastic remark about "winning by playing the racism card" sidesteps the legitimate concerns regarding how language and rhetoric can dehumanize vulnerable populations. Recognizing the racial implications of such discussions is crucial in fostering a more informed and compassionate dialogue about immigration and asylum.

Expanding on the situation in Sweden, while it is true that the country has experienced significant challenges in its immigration and asylum system, these issues are multifaceted and cannot be attributed solely to the presence of asylum seekers. Sweden's experience has demonstrated the importance of robust integration policies. Reports indicate that while Sweden has welcomed many refugees, the country has faced difficulties with integration, particularly in addressing social cohesion and the economic participation of newcomers .

In response to these challenges, Sweden has implemented various programs aimed at improving integration, including language training and job placement services, to help migrants and asylum seekers successfully adapt to Swedish society . The narrative that Sweden is now "paying people to leave" simplifies a complex situation and ignores the proactive measures the country is taking to manage immigration sustainably. Such statements risk misrepresenting the realities faced by both the Swedish government and the immigrant population, and they can contribute to a divisive discourse around asylum policies.

The post in question was problematic for several reasons.

The assertion that asylum seekers are "illegal immigrants" who commit crimes at a "hugely higher rate than native Europeans" is steeped in harmful stereotypes and lacks substantial evidence. Such sweeping generalizations not only misrepresent the realities of asylum seekers but also perpetuate a narrative that unfairly stigmatizes entire groups based on the actions of a few. Studies indicate that immigrants, including asylum seekers, are often less likely to engage in criminal activity compared to native populations. For example, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that immigrants are generally less involved in crime than native-born citizens in the UK .

Furthermore, the claim that asylum seekers make "next to no effort to integrate" overlooks the numerous initiatives that many undertake to adapt to their new environments. Integration challenges are often the result of systemic barriers, including language difficulties, limited access to employment opportunities, and cultural differences, rather than a lack of willingness or effort on the part of migrants . The notion that asylum seekers raise children who are "less likely to contribute to society" is also unfounded, as many children of immigrants outperform their peers academically and contribute positively to their communities when given the chance .

The language used in these claims echoes racist undertones that dehumanize asylum seekers and perpetuate a false narrative of them as burdens on society. Such rhetoric not only harms the individuals targeted but also undermines the social fabric by fostering division and fear. Acknowledging the contributions of asylum seekers and the complexities of migration is essential for creating a more inclusive society.

You can find the report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) that discusses immigration and crime in the UK at the following link: Asylum in the UK - IPPR FactFile. This report highlights the misconceptions surrounding asylum seekers and emphasizes that they are generally less involved in crime compared to native-born citizens.

Additionally, the IPPR's research shows that the idea of immigrants as a threat to public safety is largely unfounded, as evidence suggests that they often contribute positively to society. The narrative surrounding immigration can sometimes be rooted in stereotypes rather than facts, making it essential to rely on credible studies for an accurate understanding of the impacts of immigration.

For further insights, you can also explore the IPPR report titled Beyond the Hostile Environment, which discusses the effects of immigration policies and the realities faced by migrants in the UK.

What that poster said was not racist or discrimination, you just FEEL that it is,

If you are being genuine and you just feel like you want to save everyone in the world from anything that even slightly resembles hardship,that's fair enough,

But the reality is we cannot take in and look after the world's downtrodden,or we will also be downtrodden.

I have reported many attempts to derail the thread but I will address this point. I work on posts and come back to them as it requires quite some time. I'm currently working on several replies at the moment on several different forums. I then post at various times when I add finishing touches and have a break during work. Thankfully I work for myself. I use the Vim editor which is a godsend for text file management. I also have quite a few links and thoughts saved as I do need to go over the same points from time to time. From here on out I will not respond to posts like this and will report all posts like this to the mods and I urge others to do the same.. Lets get back on topic.

Which ChatGPT poster… there’s a few! They repeat the same shite over and over and over again.

Enlighten us all then

What, specifically, is the racist content of their post?

You ignore that back in the 19th century there was no system to take advantage of.

Would it not be better for the government to buy houses that will last longer and are cheaper than temporary modular homes at 422k for refugees .?