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

Yes, exactly that. What if there are fewer than 100 people to be deported? Is this an upper aspiration for you, or is it some kind of quota? You might want to think a little about how things would actually work, rather than firing out buzzwords and arbitrary numbers.

OK but the point made was about cost right? Daily flights (to where?) with 100 failed AS — which seems like a fairly optimistic number to be honest — still requires that money is incurred and someone gets paid for it.

No they wouldn't — and this idea that it's just a tap that can be turned on and off is a recurring theme in Right wing discussion which is great at winning votes but not so great at achieving sustainable policy. If this is the belief you are basing your views on, then (in my own humble opinion) you are going to spend the rest of your life being let down.

I am suggesting that we actually remove the 80% of AS that are bogus.

I am suggesting to massively speed up processing, towards the 24hrs that Switz achieves for four countries.

Even getting towards the 12 weeks in the new EU scheme would help, as we are at 68-81 weeks now.

I am suggesting that we should not award leave-to-remain.

Given 30,000 applicants in the system now, we need to remove thousands.

That means we should probably acquire an aircraft. I am assuming here that owning an aircraft would be cheaper, if doing daily flights.

Removing the existing stock of 30,000 would take hundreds of flights, that's why we need daily flights.

Also bear in mind the inflows of 200-250 per week, of which 80% are bogus.

So just to match the inflow, we need to remove 200 per week (not including dealing with existing stock).

Could we aim for removal by +7 days from arrival? And would that in itself reduce the flow of bogus AS? Hopefully.

The overall objective is to reduce costs on taxpayers, down from €122,000 per claim.

And where does the "80% are bogus" claim come from? Another arse-pull? Another Gript/Youth Defence article? Can this claim be defended?

Directly from the Taoiseach.

https://extra.ie/2025/03/05/news/politics/assylum-seekers-economic-migrants

The figure used to be 90%, years ago.

The answer to your question is hinted in the second line of your post. The fact that it has never been done / tried tells you something about the difficulty of the nature of doing it. With all the best intentions in the world, and even with all the democratic mandate, the longevity and sustainability of any truly radical policy to drive down IPA numbers relies heavily on luck (ie, no wars or other disaster break out), geography, the co-operation of other countries perpetually and without any disruption to that co-operation, and somehow creating a situation where other countries will accept our stance that they should get more IPAs than us forevermore.

You can toy around with policies — do a little Switzerland here, do a little Denmark there — but ultimately an all-out cessation (or close to that) involves the alignment of other factors that in many cases we have little control over.

So you've got your state aircraft loaded with 100 asylum seekers and 89 Irish citizens (Gardai, medical staff etc).

What happens now?

"Hello is that the President of Afghanistan? We'd like permission to fly into your airspace and land to deposit 100 people. Names? Eh ... I'm not sure, as they've no identifying papers. In fact some of them are claiming not to be from your country at all but … hello, hello are you still there?"

Well, the irony in my view has always been that the Right tends to favour economic policies that make migration inevitable. That stems of course from the traditionally Right-leaning ideology of free market capitalism (i.e. capital, goods, and services should move freely across borders in search of their most efficient use). With that, you get the movement of labour. The very things which uphold the capitalist system have become part of the bedrock of modern migration, aided hugely by technological developments in communication and long distance travel.

One thing the Right has been hugely successful in is hooking anti-migration sentiment on security / cultural concerns but carefully avoiding any examination of this ideological economic contradiction. And the evidence of the contradiction is all around us. Brexit saw a decline in EU migration to the UK which was then simply replaced by non-EU migration, Meloni in Italy had to row back on her policies, Trump's policies do not look built to last - because all of their policies clash with how their economies work.

To answer your question then, "turning the tap off" requires fundamental adjustments in our economic model that would require us to almost entirely home-grow our labour force in such a way that maintains our economy and which somehow prevents or offsets the loss of labour to emigration. You then have the "problem" of democracy, where frustration with those adjustments can end up with reversals of those policies by a new incoming government.

what a racist - he can’t say that

say it loud say it clear , refugees are welcome here !!

Will it ever end?

A Ghanian man who raped an intoxicated woman he approached at a nightclub has been jailed for six and a half years.

Arthur Bradford (37), who is now subject to a deportation order, was convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury last month of raping the woman in Dublin on February 8, 2022. He has 21 previous convictions.

Under my policies, he would have spent a max of seven days here, so these 21 crimes would not have happened.

Arthur Bradford..😆😖🥴

But seriously, in the real world how do you return asylum seekers?

I'm assuming you're old enough to realise that you can't just fly and land a plane wherever you want?

How do you get the tweet to appear large in the middle, as distinct from just a URL?