Immigration and Ireland - MEGATHREAD *Mod Note Added 14/08/25*

Contradiction in this paragraph:

"And no, nobody from another country is entitled to housing under EU law. Applicants for international protection however, are entitled to have their basic needs met, and the State’s failure to do so means that they could be found to be in violation of the terms of the international agreements in law which Ireland have agreed to abide by, as a member of the EU "

If nobody from another country were entitled to housing, then that would extend to IPAs.

They were not randomly selected. All residents did not engage with the journalists so there was no random selection about it.

Being upset at a group of people for no other reason than the colour of their skin is racist.

This is absolutely frightening

https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-justice-home-affairs-and-migration/publications/speech-by-minister-for-justice-home-affairs-and-migration-jim-ocallaghan-a-contested-arena-balancing-competing-human-rights-in-the-area-of-justice-home-affairs-and-migration/

This government is doing so much damage to our country

The stand out paragraphs

On 10 April this year in proceedings brought against Ireland by two international protection applicants, the Advocate General gave an opinion that Ireland as an EU Member State cannot avoid responsibility for providing adequate reception conditions even in cases where there is a large influx of people seeking international protection, as was the case last year. The Government argued the breaches were due to exceptional circumstances, namely an influx of asylum seekers, which amounted to "force majeure" under EU law. The Advocate General ruled that under the directive a member state could not avoid a claim for damages because of a defence of force majeure.

If that opinion is upheld by the CJEU, which is the most likely outcome, it will mean that people in Ireland who are entitled to be on social housing lists or homeless lists and who have not been provided with accommodation will be in a situation where they cannot receive damages for the state’s failure to provide accommodation, whilst applicants for asylum will immediately on arrival in Ireland be able to claim and receive Francovich damages from the State if it cannot provide them with accommodation. That will be a very consequential decision that will be very hard to justify, not just to citizens of Ireland but of all member states. We should try to ensure that in trying to vindicate certain rights we do not marginalise or demote other equally legitimate rights.

I'm really lost for words on this

I don’t think it’s frightening, but when the Minister comes out with this kind of ridiculous rhetoric in order to avoid upholding the States international human rights obligations -

We should try to ensure that in trying to vindicate certain rights we do not marginalise or demote other equally legitimate rights.

While it is damaging to Ireland’s credibility and reputation as a country which portrays itself as a defender of human rights, what’s worse is that it’s the Minister’s own credibility is questionable when he attempts to pretend that there is a conflict of rights between international protection applicants, and people who are homeless, in an attempt to justify depriving both groups of being treated in accordance with human rights standards.

The country is fine, Government are a bit shyte, but O’ Callaghan is doing damage by attempting damage limitation on behalf of the State while fobbing responsibility for his efforts off on the the citizens of Ireland and all member states in the EU as if he’s doing anyone a favour 😒

Already posted by me, and still there is no contradiction in what I said, nor the part in the article which I quoted -

While Ms Medina suggested that force majeure may apply temporarily, it should only be for a reasonable period to resolve the issue.

She has concluded the right to dignity is non-derogable, an absolute right, and if a member state fails to meet the basic needs of applicants for international protection, it infringes EU law.

Therefore the member state cannot invoke force majeure as a defence.

The advocate general's opinion has been viewed as highly significant by advocates of those seeking international protection here.

1. One eyed Jack: "Nobody, including IPAs, are entitled to housing. Not even Irish citizens are entitled to housing"
2. One eyed Jack: "And no, nobody from another country is entitled to housing under EU law. Applicants for international protection however, are entitled to have their basic needs met, and the State’s failure to do so means that they could be found to be in violation of the terms of the international agreements in law which Ireland have agreed to abide by, as a member of the EU "

There's a contradiction between these two statements because the "entitled to have their basic needs met" in the second paragraph includes housing. You already know this from the RTE article you read and quoted.

From that article: "Ms Medina noted the article imposes "a clear and unequivocal obligation" on EU member states to provide applicants [IPAs] with adequate material reception conditions, including housing."

You read this article and quoted parts of it.

I'm very sorry if you can't see the contradiction, and I hope other contributors to this thread will help explain it to you.

Wow!!!!

I am not sure what to say here. But surely there comes a breaking point. Laws are there for a reason and justly so, but there comes a point where laws need to be revised. In this case, the conflict is between the asylum seekers and the domestic homeless. Are the consequences worse for the govt and the irish people in the long term, to break the asykum seekers law than the domestic homeless. If it does not make sense then common sense would for it to be reviewed. I am sure there are lots of laws like that id you looked hard enough.

Also, what did opting into the eu pact change on this?

And, how much of this is this the govt just focusing on the justification of their immigration stance? What are the options or penalties for being in breach of this agreement?

Now remember folks, putting asylum seekers into repurposed buildings has no effect on housing.

What about when they leave the repurposed buildings? Oh, that's a separate issue - maybe, let's do some research and a nice big report on it sometime!

Would our homeless industry even exist nowadays without immigration?

why does it have to be either or?

it can be a bit of both. The point is these lot are making it tougher for the average working Irish person to buy a house here.

Like everything in this AS scam it's not

Is it fair that hotels are taken away from Communities

Is it fair these people get everything on a silver platter

Is it fair that majority are economic migrates chancing their arm

It's a false equivalence in the first place as International Protection Applicants do not have the same legal status as Irish citizens.

Homelessness & Rights – Irish Legal Blog

Well there is one thing that the minister could do, stop any funding of organisations that take such actions against the state. Watch the shrieking and howling begin then.

Alot of these people are just going to be a drain on society and going to be living on benefits

The number one reason listed for individuals needing to access emergency accommodation was “Having left direct provision,” at 26%, with another 5% being individuals who had “newly arrived from abroad.”

Brilliant summary and note government parties despite their incompetence, imo, are up in today's polls while Sinn Fein move downwards. Why is the opposition's fixated with woke and cultural issues whilst ignoring the real problems we are facing?