Immigration and Ireland - MEGATHREAD *Mod Note Added 02/09/25*

The question was whether or not we are prepared. We are.

As for anyone engaging in criminal activity, we’re prepared for that too. We have been since the establishment of AGS, and the Courts. Allowing for immigration has nothing to do with whether or not the State is in a position to enforce Irish law.

Rather than whether or not the perpetrator is an Irish citizen, the focus should be on addressing criminal behaviour. The failure of Government to address prison overcrowding has meant that this is what they’ve had to resort to -

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/electronic-tagging-of-some-sex-offenders-to-be-brought-in-this-year

Don’t conflate civil law with the criminal justice system.

So, yes, we have plenty of criminal activity but the question ought to be asked why we are knowingly importing additional criminal activity?

We’re not importing criminal activity, additional, knowingly or otherwise.

The rest of it would be nitpicking, but it can even more easily be dismissed as complete nonsense.

We’re not though. Government representatives don’t travel to the UK for example and tell the authorities “We’ll have forty of your finest wife beaters, a couple of solicitors, and three accountants please, we don’t have enough of those back home… how are we for politicians?”

I mean, be funny if they did, but they don’t. It’s just nonsense rhetoric is all.

You’re not following (can’t say I blame you, the original premise is just silly).

The poster claimed we are importing criminal activity.

No country imports criminal activity, it’s nothing more than just stupid rhetoric.

No, no it doesn’t. Because the concept of importing criminal activity is too stupid to entertain. Ireland does not import criminal activity.

Immigrants come here, we don’t import them, and they are held to the same standards in law as Irish citizens. The vast majority of immigrants don’t engage in criminal activity, there are the few who do, but there is no way of knowing who will commit a criminal act according to Irish law at some unspecified point in the future, no more than there is any way of determining an Irish citizen will commit a criminal act according to Irish law at some point in the future.

Minority report was just a Hollywood film.

I would like to draw attention to the extreme nitpicking that I mentioned before.

I was a bit loose with my language and so this single factor is pounced upon and run into the ground with the usual sneering attitude. "Silly." "Stupid." "Nonsense."

Anybody reading my post would know that I do not literally mean that Irish politicians are travelling the globe looking for criminal activity to bring to Ireland. That would be stupid, that would be silly and that would be nonsense. That's OK because almost everyone would know exactly what I meant.

Irish government policy on immigration results in a raw increase in the number of crimes being committed here. Some types of crime in particular are over represented among those being welcomed to stay here as part of government policy. These are some of the negative impacts of that government policy.

My questions are simply what are the positives of our governments policy on immigration and how do those positives outweigh the, extensively documented, negatives?

Instead a, possibly deliberate, misreading of my words with suitable, possibly fake, indignation over that misreading is the direction the discussion must go in.

Why are people so invested in deflecting conversation away from the negative impact of our governments policies?

Reflected again in the case of the man in the doctors waiting room. We are so utterly committed to the idea that a man like this must, absolutely must, be allowed to stay in Ireland that any argument that maybe he shouldn't be allowed to stay is waved away.

"Forget the negative impacts, we've had trouble in the past so we are ready for them hahaha!"

OK so what are the positive impacts that are worth the costs?

Instead a, possibly deliberate, misreading of my words with suitable, possibly fake, indignation over that misreading is the direction the discussion must go in

I didn’t misread your post - as you admit yourself you were a bit loose with your language. I was doing nothing more than tightening it up by pointing out that civil and criminal law are not conflatable.

I’m perplexed that you’re asking that question when I had already posted in response to your previous post -

Immigrants come here, we don’t import them, and they are held to the same standards in law as Irish citizens. The vast majority of immigrants don’t engage in criminal activity, there are the few who do, but there is no way of knowing who will commit a criminal act according to Irish law at some unspecified point in the future, no more than there is any way of determining an Irish citizen will commit a criminal act according to Irish law at some point in the future.

I know what the original poster was saying, as though it is Government policy to permit immigrants who commit offences against the State, entry into the State.

It’s not, the two issues are simply unrelated. It can’t be a negative of Governments immigration policy because immigrants are required to state whether they have a criminal record in another country. I don’t expect that many who actually have a criminal record are honest about it, so to suggest Government knowingly import criminality, when they don’t, isn’t just a quibble over semantics or flippy floppy logic. It’s pointing out a fact which is being carelessly overlooked by the poster making the point who later admits they were a bit loose with their language.

Now that’s cleared up 👍

So are you saying it's better just to sound off without anything to back up what you claim . What nonsense.

I don't understand what it would cost people to just admit that there are in fact negative effects caused by the government's policy on immigration.

I think because admitting to some of the more severe negative impacts leads us to the obvious question of whether or not the positives are worth the negatives.

Which leads us down the road of asking if we are just willing to accept a certain amount of collateral damage in order to continue supporting the government policy.

The nitpicking, semantic arguments and so on are just a way of avoiding the reality of the situation.

The reason nobody who doesn’t already share your view agrees with you is because they don’t make the same associations with what you point out are the negatives of immigration, which you attempt to attribute to Government policy on immigration.

Everything else in your argument flows from that deliberate mischaracterisation, which is why people aren’t readily willing to engage in what they see as bad faith bullshìt arguments, because it risks those arguments being perceived as legitimate and valid arguments against Government policy on immigration.

No.

Now don’t start nitpicking.