Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1116117119121122142

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Apparently because I want to keep taking in refugees I’m “pro immigration” and “open borders”. This thread is ridiculous

    Isn't "wanting to keep taking in refugees" the very definition of "pro immigration" though? I'm not sure why you'd object to the description if it is your stated position?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 919 ✭✭✭creeper1


    I think you are going to have to answer the question.

    What you are doing here is trying to wriggle out of answering the question.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Hungry Burger


    Ah nah but seriously, you said that you think we should take anyone on who has a legitimate claim, so why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Surely space in the living room for a couple of bunk beds.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    While the figures in the study are open to question, the general conclusion one can draw is obvious, with or without that study - there are far, far, more people in developing countries who want to move to developed countries than those developed countries can ever take in. And this is the crux of the problem with the current policy - there are no limits. The World Bank says 84% of the world's population - 6.7 Billion people - live in developing countries. While nobody on the "let 'em all in" side will ever admit it, 84% just doesn't go into 16%, no matter how they may wish it does. Something has to give.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    It goes back to wanting a new car. Having the means to own on is completely different.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The means are, relatively speaking, easy. There were over a million application for asylum in the EU in 2023.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,922 ✭✭✭dabbler2004


    So your opinion is that all genuine asylum claims should be allowed to remain in the country. And you have no clue as to what the maximum number should be.

    What do you think Ireland should do to house these people? It could be 1,000 , it could be 1 million. Surely you're not going to reply with "build more houses".

    That's before we get into where are AS put while their claims are being processed, how long should the process take to determine genuine claims and what to do with those people who have made not genuine claims.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    I did answer the question: I don’t know. I won’t speak with certainty unless I know the answer.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,333 ✭✭✭prunudo


    It was linked in a post above mine, which has since been edited by a mod.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    By your definition it means letting in one person or everyone. It renders the phrase obsolete.

    Let one person in and refuse 99.999999999% of applications: pro immigration.

    I want to debate on content and not on stupid phrases and shouting points. It’s ridiculous.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    I already conceded. You got me. Your argument was so razor sharp and conclusive I simply had to concede

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    So what's that as a percentage of the figure you provided.

    6.7 billion?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    Deflection. This isn't about cars. This is about changing the homogeneity of Ireland and other similar nations forever more. But tell us how the refugees welcome crowd couldn't give a toss about the implications of such change without telling us.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Despite your language, I'll respond.

    That's not what I'm saying at all (as I presume you well know).

    Either you want limited numbers, or you want a free for all. Given you refuse to countenance a limit, one can only conclude that you do not want any limit. This is, again, the very definition of pro immigration, and I'm puzzled as to why you appear to (or at least pretend to) take umbrage at being described as such, when that is your stated position.

    I believe we have taken in too many people to date, and a freeze should be put on further applications until such time as we process the current application, and sort out accommodation for those who are allowed to stay (which I believe should be a very small number). Yes, we will incur the wrath of the NGO's, the EU, etc. We will attract opprobrium and fines. Will these fines be more than the cost to house and keep the numbers we are taking at the moment? I suspect not. We should fight any fines imposed - we have a housing crisis and an increasing homelessness problem. It is long past time to stand up for ourselves. Once that is done, we can look at what realistic numbers we can take every year, and go from there.

    See how easy that was? My position, whether one agrees with it or not, clearly stated. You should try it.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    What are you asking?

    I gave you global figures, and then stated the EU applications.

    If you want to play around with percentages do the maths yourself.

    Why does it matter? Do you believe the EU can take a million refugees a year indefinitely?

    What number do you think is sustainable?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Hungry Burger


    He’s definitely not going to put them in his own gaff anyway going from the responses above, typical champagne socialist mentality anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    This is about changing the homogeneity of Ireland and other similar nations forever more

    It isn't really? It's more about a study you clearly you don't or don't want to understand.

    Now that it has been pointed out to you, you are screaming deflection on your own citied study. Which is bizarre.

    You sound like another one who just wants to self fear monger.

    Would that be accurate?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    If you want to play around with percentages do the maths yourself.

    The percentages are pertinent to the hyperbole.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    Thats very accurate - I just self fear monger all day every day and I haven't a clue about the effects unlimited amounts of migration and refugees will have on countries such as Ireland.

    Thank you for enlightening me and I eagerly will follow you now into the land of honey, milk and flying unicorns where a new Ireland and her peoples sit around a camp fire holding hands singing songs.

    It's going to be fan diddly tastic. We are so lucky to have enlightened progressives amongst us who can see everything so clearly and have it all mapped out.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The "hyperbole" that there were over a million applications in the EU alone?

    Or the "hyperbole" that we can't take unlimited numbers?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


     I just self fear monger all day every day

    Good for you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    The argument about people taking asylum seekers into their home on the surface seems reductive and childish but it is a telling one.

    The obvious answer most people would have to such a question would be that they don't have the space in their home, or they lack the resources required to house these people properly.

    Ironically these are the exact same issues facing the state yet the people who object to housing asylum seekers in their own homes at the micro level see no issue with the state failing to properly accommodate asylum seekers at the macro level.

    Surely there should be some acknowledgement of this hypocrisy from these people? The constant conflation of asylum seekers with refugees that they engage in is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters.

    Refugees and asylum seekers aren't the same. The number of asylum seekers far out stretches the number of actual refugees in this country and somewhere north of 80% of asylum applications are thought to be bogus which married to the lack of removal of these bogus claimants from the state puts pressure on the already stretched system for genuine asylum applicants and refugees.

    No country has unlimited resources to throw at this issue and it's one that needs to be properly rationalised before it gets further out of control.

    We need good outcomes for refugees and genuine asylum applicants and that does mean getting tough on bogus claimants. If that upsets people who want to allow unlimited numbers of people into the state but don't want to assume any personal responsibility for it then too bad, it's time to grow up and cop on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    There is no such thing as unlimited.

    The limit which you gave is 6.7 billion.

    I asked you what percentage is 1 million.

    You refused to engage.

    If you are intent in scaring yourself with absolute nonsense I'm not going to change your mind am I?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Nonsense.

    In any practical sense, 1 million a year is unlimited, not to mention 6.7 Billion.

    I have not refused to engage at all, I have addressed all your spoofing.

    I asked, and you refused to answer, do you believe the EU can take 1 million indefinitely?

    There is no nonsense, the figures I quoted are from legitimate sources. You, however, are afraid to answer any question at all, because you know your position, like all the "let 'em all in" merchants, is completely unsustainable, but your dogmatic position won't allow you to admit it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    You'll never get an answer to this. Sustainability only applies to things like plastic straws and public transport. A million people rolling in to Europe annually is fine - in fact the more the merrier.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Odd how concerns about carbon emissions from air travel are forgotten when it's a plane full of asylum seekers being flown in isn't it?

    Another odd part of the modern lefty liberal Venn diagram of issues that clash with each other but are ignored.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Oh I'm fully aware. The simple question "How many?" is kryptonite to this discussion. I've asked it a thousand times in person and online, and not one of them has ever even attempted to answer it. The response is always name calling and abuse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Must be because the question has "far right undertones". Anything that's inconvenient is fascist these days.

    I'm due a gas bill in January, I'm thinking of sending back and accusing electric Ireland of being a neo fascist organisation that are part of the institutionalised far right agenda that's leading Ireland towards becoming a dictatorship led by Justin Barrett.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    Very true. One only has to look at how environmental laws were over-ridden in order to build out mass-accommodation for AS in Athlone and Thornton Hall recently. Thankfully the courts upheld the laws and forced Roddy to concede. Importantly though - what message does that send to the ordinary citizen who has to jump through so many hoops if they want to build a house or a factory or similar? It lends into the argument that there is one rule for us another for them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 461 ✭✭Rooks


    Lads, the reason they don't respond with a number and say "I don't know" is because the answer is open borders and the number is indeterminate. They are telling the truth when they say they don't know. Very simple.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement