Immigration and Ireland - MEGATHREAD *Read OP for mod warnings before posting*

I'd say for a lot of them the UK wasn't even the first port of call either. The system is rotten to the core.

The way things are supposed to work is that you claim asylum in the first safe country you land in.

At this stage I really think posters are doing something we are not supposed to do on here!

This myth has been addressed and debunked numerous times. Why are posters still repeating false claims?

I think the real issue is that we need to consider the concept of refugees.

During WW2 we had refugees who were fairly equally divided by sex (probably more women) and frequently children, being turned away. Treaties were created because it was so self-evidently impossible to support this happening.

But then you get even more people seeking refuge rather than fighting because the richer countries have said they have a moral and legal obligation to offer asylum to anyone from a war zone.

Next you get better forms of transport, and refugees wanting somewhere not merely safe but prosperous. Shopping around: they don't like France/Italy/Spain because reasons - often to do with how economically prosperous various countries are, or not.

Then you have refugees saying that it’s unfair for them to have to disrupt their lives AGAIN to return home post war.

Then, refugees saying that they didn’t choose to leave, they HAD to (shades of teenager "I didn’t ask to be born, mother!") so they should get to keep their culture and have it prioritised above local culture because they’re Victims.

So, like "mission creep", now there’s "concept creep".

But there is no WW2 now. There are just countries that men have been making into hellholes since long before WW2, and whose men - and it is nearly always men now - are coming to the west rather than stay to fix the country they've destroyed. A small-scale version of plans to move to Mars once we've destroyed the earth.

But I think the Ukrainians broke the spell of accepting bands of fit young men seeking "asylum", sometimes even asylum from being persecuted as ex-soldiers in their home country, because the Ukrainians sent children away and the young men went to the front.

IOW, back to the original concept of what asylum laws were intended to enable.

Then, refugees saying that they didn’t choose to leave, they HAD to (shades of teenager "I didn’t ask to be born, mother!") so they should get to keep their culture and have it prioritised above local culture because they’re Victims.

I would like to see you expand on this? People don't have to leave and become refugees, is that what you're saying? They are comparable to rude teenagers for daring to leave a dangerous country? Really.

And can you please point out anywhere that a refugees culture is somehow prioritised above the local culture, what does this prioritisation of cultures look like exactly?

Funnily enough id say if you looked at voting preferences by age and home ownership by age. You would find a big correlation of FF/fg voters in the age groups that own their own home.

I feel enraged after reading that… that O'Brien and O'Gorman have a lot to answer for. Own front door after four months. What were they playing at?

Technically speaking afaiaa there was no legal definition of refugee until after WW2 when it was said that anyone moving from anywhere in Europe to anywhere else in Europe due to fear of persecution was a refugee and this was made part of the Geneva Conventions. This was due to the mass ethnic cleansing and political fallout of WW2. Around a decade later this was sloppily changed to remove the references to Europe.

Back when the definition was being penned Europe was still controlled by empires and I feel this influenced the way in which this regulation was composed. It also didn't envision a world where there was vast differences in wealth between countries yet a lack of unskilled primary industry for people wanting to emigrate.

There are now several absolutely colossal deficits in the legislation.

1. Failed asylum seekers cannot legally be deported unless their country of origin willingly accepts them.
2. Geography cannot be taken into account when establishing the legitimacy of claims. The Dublin legislation is a soggy band-aid that doesn't solve this crucial issue. Many people erroneously say "first friendly country" but this is not what the law actually says, it precisely says nothing.
3. The legislation is exceptionally vague when it considers "risk of persecution". We recently saw a man from Moldova successfully claim asylum as Transnistria (de facto, but not de jure a different country) is run by Russia. This led the ECJ to interpret the legislation by saying that if any location in any country is unsafe the country must be considered unsafe. This is currently being challenged by Italy as the Italian courts based their view of Egypt's level of safety on the ECJ's ruling.
4. Methods of entry cannot be taken into account when establishing the legitimacy of claims. This leads to the bonkers situation where countries can legitimately build massive walls and fences and people can legitimately break through them or scale them. Provided someone makes it onto the sovereign territory of a country they can claim asylum, and at that point cannot be legally removed for a number of years.
5. In relation to point 4 above, Belarus and Russia realized how broken the system was and have been exploiting it in asymmetric warfare by paying asylum seekers to go into countries that Russia considers to be hostile. This has led the EU to say that the application of international law relating to refugees can be suspended in Poland to counter this threat!

What an unholy mess

You're first link I can't read, and I'm not on X so can't read any of that either. Pretty sure neither of them are putting a foreign person's culture above or before the local culture though, or else you could show it.

'a request that is sometimes made' yeah, that's the thing with people, sometimes they ask for things. Doesn't mean anyone is putting a foreign culture before a local culture. Your whole post is hyperbole.

Until they think they're not. As per the British public in 2024 finally getting rid of the Tories after 14 years. How politics works.

Is this illegal and inhuman as in not having an extensive menu provided by the catering service? The only possible grounds that they would have had to complain would have been the length of time required to make a decision on their applications. If the provision had genuinely been illegal it could have been taken to court rather than the 2 bit opinion from organizations making jobs for themselves. This was precisely the case when the government's lack of capacity to provide accommodation to an Afghan asylum seeker was successfully taken to court - which happened under O'Gorman incidentally, partially because himself and McEntee allowed the situation to spiral out of control.

Like wishful thinking how all are going to work and buy their own houses bewildering.

https://gript.ie/96-of-migrants-who-present-with-false-or-no-documentation-allowed-to-stay/

Staggering statistic here thanks to a freedom of information request from gript. It makes me so angry reading this.

I think following the mod intervention in the thread where it was stated

there's no place for that sort of posting on this website.

We can probably agree that there was racist posting in this thread, right?

Isn't getting angry the purpose of clicking on Gript?

False headline btw. Those without documents were NOT allowed to stay but permitted to apply for asylum. It's all in the wording.

So why are you using false statistics (UNESCO does not provide such) and then extrapolate them to the UK and Ireland?

Firstly they're not real.

Secondly they were purported to be global not these islands.

Wrong on both counts. I guess you expect people not to challenge this stuff.