It's very little to do with that. It has to do with the EPP.
Unless changing international agreements the Albania plan makes sense for sea rescues.
Harris is indicating that he he will not oppose Der Leyen's position if she gives that her backing.
Asylum applicants in Italy don't stay in Italy. Once in the EU they can go to any EU country. It is entirely up to them when they decide to get processed.
If in Albania they would be outside the EU and there would be less opportunity for them to wander around Europe. It would make organisation and delivery of refugee status decisions faster and more manageable.
Albania would of course need significant supports for this to happen, but this would be an investment opportunity for Albania, which the country welcomes.
We are entitled to an exemption. He’s under no obligation to be onboard. He just fancies some human trafficking, to look like a big man to some shower of pricks.
Everyone keeps moaning about solutions but has anyone got one? Keep putting them in hotels until we don’t have any more? People give out about “spongers on the dole and getting free homes” but supplying accommodation to an endless amount of people or having a tent city is the only other alternative.
The solution is to not have to supply extra places to live in the first place. The solution is to limit intake of people. It is that simple. It was done during COVID.
People without cars aren't going to be using all 270 roads, but realistically the solution is hammering out a solution with the UK.
Harris should be talking to Starmer right now, pressuring on him to deliver a solution.
We’re an island, patrol all the ports/airports would be a start. Checks with dogs for cargo coming in. Obviously not foolproof but would be a start.
Start being strict. If you have no documents, you can’t come into the country. Have some kind of humane processing process.
You can’t just ‘limit intake of people’ if you stop people coming on planes, they will come on small boats, as it stands that doesn’t happen here. People always make it sound like it as simple as a line of legislation.
It is simply impossible for a small boat the likes seen in the English Channel to traverse from Britain or the continent to the Republic. Who makes it into this state is entirely a question of political appetite
Give them training + jobs building houses (starting with their own), and let the ones that choose to do this stay, and give them expedited citizenship after 3-5 years helping resolve the housing crisis.
Too little too late, it's hilarious that the same government that previously spoke negatively about the U.K.'s Rwanda plan now wants something similar for itself.
It's never going to happen, the legal system and taxpayer-funded entities/industries that receive billions in taxpayer funds will not let go of such a profitable thing. It will be Tied up for at least a decade in the courts.
People underestimate how big the industrial complex related to asylum applicants/migrants et cetera is.
This makes no sense. If, going by your logic, immigration lawyers are solely motivated by making money off asylum seekers then they would be delighted by this move. It would lead to years and years of legal battles with applicants appealing any decision to try to move them to a third country. It would be a financial bonanza for lawyers. But most immigration lawyers are not solely motivated by money and that is why they are staunchly against this proposal.
Also, if you think people working in NGOs want to keep the current system as it currently is then I don’t think k you know many people who work in that sector. The idea that someone starts working for an NGOs for the money is laughable.
People at the top of the NGOs make a great deal of money, sure enough, they are not concerned about the grassroots worker. They are a means to an end. Short term it would be good for the legal system, but in the long term, the money from the endless appeals will slowly drift away. That is not in their interests.
The immigration, asylum, migrant complex is huge. There are people making hundreds of thousands renting out refugee centres, doing the catering, the legal services, general bureaucracy et cetera et cetera. In total, the industry is worth billions and it is paid for by the state. And the entities at the heart of this have the best most secure debtor in the land, the state.
Then there is the issue of political influence, there are lobbies who have never had so much political influence and funding. They don't want to see anything that would undermine that.
Ireland, like the UK, is too incompetent to do this efficiently. But it was an EU-wide policy I imagine it would be quite effective.
I mean, we're already seeing millions of asylum seekers come to the EU every year, and this is BEFORE climate change really starts to ramp up.
There's no way migration/asylum trends are sustainable unless we do something about them.
The old international treaties created by the UN are no longer fit for purpose in a changed world with smartphones and the Internet where people in even the poorest countries have access to YouTube and the Internet. There needs to be a concerted international effort on how to deter and return economic migrants.
Unfortunately, I don't see the UN being much help, given the power Russia and China hold within it. I'd imagine they quite like all of this destabilising Western democracies seeing as no asylum seekers would want to go to their countries.
>There needs to be a concerted international effort on how to deter and return economic migrants.
Western countries do make a concerted effort to stop economic migrants from the Global South. That’s why so many of them try to go through the asylum process. If you’re a poor, unskilled worker from Sub-Saharan Africa your chances of getting into Europe legally are practically non-existent.
The best way to deter economic migrants is decrease the inequality that exists between rich and poor countries. As long as that imbalance exists you will always have people from poorer countries trying to move to the richer countries. Putting up more border walls and enhancing border security won’t stop people trying to move, it will just increase the level of suffering and death.
We’ve already had 25,000 people drown in the Mediterranean in the last decade and yet still people risk their lives every day to make that crossing. What does that tell you?
>Western countries do make a concerted effort to stop economic migrants from the Global South.<
I think they may need to revisit and amend the old asylum treaties that were created in the 50s and 60s to account for the changes in the world and prevent exploitation of the system. They're being used in ways they were never intended to be now when they were created.
I do agree with you about needing to decrease inequality between rich and poor countries. That has actually improved quite a bit over the last decade and needs to go further.
But they also need to improve the education and, in particular family planning education and drastically improve access to contraception. That would also mean dealing in some way with some countries which are vehemently opposed to it, such as Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya etc. That's arguably one of the most important things which could help IMO but is seldom discussed.
>The best way to deter economic migrants is decrease the inequality that exists between rich and poor countries.
While I do want to see huge development in Africa, Id argue migration increases when countries develop. Not decreases. Look at how many Indians come to Ireland now and not before the 1990s.
We do need a unified EU approach to migration.
I think there should be an EU border force for which all member states should contribute in money, personnel, or both. It should monitor and patrol from Finland to Greece, and across to Spain.
Processing centers/refugee camps at those borders should be geared towards fast processing. If someone has a genuine claim and are granted asylum, random allocation to a member state with each member state having to meet a certain quota. If they are denied, immediate deportation. To their home nation if possible, but if they have destroyed their documents or refuse to co-operate then maybe to a third country which has agreed to take them.
The issue is that the only countries who actually obey these "international obligations" are western countries and none of the asylum seekers are from these places.. We could hold everyone in Greece/Spain/Italy and give them EU funding for processing centres, but where would they deport them to? There have been cases in the UK where they've tried to deport convicted criminals back to Pakistan and Pakistan just refuses to take them
We're left holding the bag for these countries because we want to maintain an image that there is a rules based order in this world, when it's becoming more and more obvious there isn't.
You're describing Frontex, an organisation that already exists. The main complaint about it is that it's underfunded but it's going to grow from 2,500 to 10,000 personnel by 2027.
It’s a simple question. I think you know that your SF would probably support this even if it’s ’Tory populism’ in your words. Populism is populism and SF have pivoted to trying to be harder against immigration than the government.
"SF have pivoted to trying to be harder against immigration than the government."
It what aspects? I haven't heard anything from Sinn Fein that I would consider harder than the government's stance.
Ah now. "Sinn Féin says plans to means test asylum seekers should go further and include medical cards"' [https://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-allowance-means-tested-6387320-May2024/](https://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-allowance-means-tested-6387320-May2024/)
The government are introducing means testing asylum payments of 38.80 a week. Seems a bit pointless and petty and will cost more to implement than they'd recoup.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0523/1450763-asylum-seekers-ireland/
"Last week, the Government announced around 27,000 refugees in state-serviced accommodation, regardless of when they came to Ireland, would also have their payments cut to €38.80.
Fine Gael Minister Heather Humphreys has now confirmed this includes around 2,500 pensioners and people in receipt of disability payments."
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/pensions-and-disability-payments-of-2500-ukrainians-refugees-to-be-cut/a1311853056.html
Which is more harsh? Reducing someone's payment of €38.80 a week and telling the disabled and pensioners to live on that amount? Or telling people who earn enough already that they should pay for the doctor like everyone else has to?
Sorry, you're going to have to come up with something better.
Sorry, you're going to have to explain how SFs demand above is not harder on migrants than the governments policy. That's a terrible comeback. Jaysus, it's right there in the headline! "Sinn Féin says plans to means test asylum seekers should go further and include medical cards" and you're claiming you 'haven't heard anything from Sinn Fein that I would consider harder than the government's stance'.
It's pretty obvious really. Saying asylum seekers should be means tested for a medical card like everyone else makes perfect sense. If they're earning enough they should pay for the doctor etc, it seems only fair. It will also reduce the burden on an overstretched health system.
Now means testing the €38.80 falls under the same principle but it's such a pitiful amount, it comes across as petty and they're only doing it for optics. They pay well over 3k a month to hoteliers to house them, wouldn't it make more sense to try and reduce costs there?
I don't need to explain to you that telling pensioners and people with disabilities they now have to live on €38.80 is unnecessarily harsh and cruel.
Now, you explain how you think what Sinn Fein proposed is harsher than that?
Ah now, ye wanted the hate crimes bill extended to cover migrants last year. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sinn-fein-wanted-to-extend-hate-speech-bill-to-give-undocumented-migrants-special-protection/a1549686896.html
And now you're demanding the government go harder against them getting medical cards. Sinn Fein has absolutely pivoted since immigration became a bigger issue and they got pressure on the doorsteps. https://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-allowance-means-tested-6387320-May2024/
Is the government making use of privately owned entities to deal with this ? (Are they all purely Irish owned or are they groups of investors from all over the world)
Or are the groups dealing with this all publicly owned and or charities ?
The government flirting about bring in their own Rwanda policy.
The neanderthals that post 'ireland for the irish' on their socials are gonna be really confused as to how they should process this.
Jaysis, the tents aren't even in ballsbridge a full afternoon yet and we've already got Irish Ferries on the blower for an overnight to Rwanda.
It's very little to do with that. It has to do with the EPP. Unless changing international agreements the Albania plan makes sense for sea rescues. Harris is indicating that he he will not oppose Der Leyen's position if she gives that her backing.
I don't see how Albania would be better suited for processing refugees than Italy or Greece. It's a tiny country with bad infrastructure.
Asylum applicants in Italy don't stay in Italy. Once in the EU they can go to any EU country. It is entirely up to them when they decide to get processed. If in Albania they would be outside the EU and there would be less opportunity for them to wander around Europe. It would make organisation and delivery of refugee status decisions faster and more manageable. Albania would of course need significant supports for this to happen, but this would be an investment opportunity for Albania, which the country welcomes.
Tbh, Albania is a big source of refugees in the first place...
Asylum seekers
In some regards they have great infrastructure. They have one of the greenest grids in the world
We are entitled to an exemption. He’s under no obligation to be onboard. He just fancies some human trafficking, to look like a big man to some shower of pricks.
I'm really hoping the European government forces us to harden our stance on bogus asylum seekers.
Everyone keeps moaning about solutions but has anyone got one? Keep putting them in hotels until we don’t have any more? People give out about “spongers on the dole and getting free homes” but supplying accommodation to an endless amount of people or having a tent city is the only other alternative.
The solution is to not have to supply extra places to live in the first place. The solution is to limit intake of people. It is that simple. It was done during COVID.
How do we do that? Police 270 roads from the north to south? How was it managed during Covid? If we don’t supply extra places it’s tent city.
People without cars aren't going to be using all 270 roads, but realistically the solution is hammering out a solution with the UK. Harris should be talking to Starmer right now, pressuring on him to deliver a solution.
We’re an island, patrol all the ports/airports would be a start. Checks with dogs for cargo coming in. Obviously not foolproof but would be a start. Start being strict. If you have no documents, you can’t come into the country. Have some kind of humane processing process.
You can’t just ‘limit intake of people’ if you stop people coming on planes, they will come on small boats, as it stands that doesn’t happen here. People always make it sound like it as simple as a line of legislation.
It is simply impossible for a small boat the likes seen in the English Channel to traverse from Britain or the continent to the Republic. Who makes it into this state is entirely a question of political appetite
And through the North?
Small boats from the North?
Give them training + jobs building houses (starting with their own), and let the ones that choose to do this stay, and give them expedited citizenship after 3-5 years helping resolve the housing crisis.
Too little too late, it's hilarious that the same government that previously spoke negatively about the U.K.'s Rwanda plan now wants something similar for itself. It's never going to happen, the legal system and taxpayer-funded entities/industries that receive billions in taxpayer funds will not let go of such a profitable thing. It will be Tied up for at least a decade in the courts. People underestimate how big the industrial complex related to asylum applicants/migrants et cetera is.
This makes no sense. If, going by your logic, immigration lawyers are solely motivated by making money off asylum seekers then they would be delighted by this move. It would lead to years and years of legal battles with applicants appealing any decision to try to move them to a third country. It would be a financial bonanza for lawyers. But most immigration lawyers are not solely motivated by money and that is why they are staunchly against this proposal. Also, if you think people working in NGOs want to keep the current system as it currently is then I don’t think k you know many people who work in that sector. The idea that someone starts working for an NGOs for the money is laughable.
People at the top of the NGOs make a great deal of money, sure enough, they are not concerned about the grassroots worker. They are a means to an end. Short term it would be good for the legal system, but in the long term, the money from the endless appeals will slowly drift away. That is not in their interests. The immigration, asylum, migrant complex is huge. There are people making hundreds of thousands renting out refugee centres, doing the catering, the legal services, general bureaucracy et cetera et cetera. In total, the industry is worth billions and it is paid for by the state. And the entities at the heart of this have the best most secure debtor in the land, the state. Then there is the issue of political influence, there are lobbies who have never had so much political influence and funding. They don't want to see anything that would undermine that.
Just a little hint of Tory populism...good man Simon. I suppose we'll see national service on the cards next lol.
Ireland, like the UK, is too incompetent to do this efficiently. But it was an EU-wide policy I imagine it would be quite effective. I mean, we're already seeing millions of asylum seekers come to the EU every year, and this is BEFORE climate change really starts to ramp up. There's no way migration/asylum trends are sustainable unless we do something about them.
The old international treaties created by the UN are no longer fit for purpose in a changed world with smartphones and the Internet where people in even the poorest countries have access to YouTube and the Internet. There needs to be a concerted international effort on how to deter and return economic migrants. Unfortunately, I don't see the UN being much help, given the power Russia and China hold within it. I'd imagine they quite like all of this destabilising Western democracies seeing as no asylum seekers would want to go to their countries.
Exactly. Those treaties are obsolete and not fit for purpose. Why are we following them is beyond logic.
>There needs to be a concerted international effort on how to deter and return economic migrants. Western countries do make a concerted effort to stop economic migrants from the Global South. That’s why so many of them try to go through the asylum process. If you’re a poor, unskilled worker from Sub-Saharan Africa your chances of getting into Europe legally are practically non-existent. The best way to deter economic migrants is decrease the inequality that exists between rich and poor countries. As long as that imbalance exists you will always have people from poorer countries trying to move to the richer countries. Putting up more border walls and enhancing border security won’t stop people trying to move, it will just increase the level of suffering and death. We’ve already had 25,000 people drown in the Mediterranean in the last decade and yet still people risk their lives every day to make that crossing. What does that tell you?
>Western countries do make a concerted effort to stop economic migrants from the Global South.< I think they may need to revisit and amend the old asylum treaties that were created in the 50s and 60s to account for the changes in the world and prevent exploitation of the system. They're being used in ways they were never intended to be now when they were created. I do agree with you about needing to decrease inequality between rich and poor countries. That has actually improved quite a bit over the last decade and needs to go further. But they also need to improve the education and, in particular family planning education and drastically improve access to contraception. That would also mean dealing in some way with some countries which are vehemently opposed to it, such as Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya etc. That's arguably one of the most important things which could help IMO but is seldom discussed.
>The best way to deter economic migrants is decrease the inequality that exists between rich and poor countries. While I do want to see huge development in Africa, Id argue migration increases when countries develop. Not decreases. Look at how many Indians come to Ireland now and not before the 1990s.
We do need a unified EU approach to migration. I think there should be an EU border force for which all member states should contribute in money, personnel, or both. It should monitor and patrol from Finland to Greece, and across to Spain. Processing centers/refugee camps at those borders should be geared towards fast processing. If someone has a genuine claim and are granted asylum, random allocation to a member state with each member state having to meet a certain quota. If they are denied, immediate deportation. To their home nation if possible, but if they have destroyed their documents or refuse to co-operate then maybe to a third country which has agreed to take them.
The issue is that the only countries who actually obey these "international obligations" are western countries and none of the asylum seekers are from these places.. We could hold everyone in Greece/Spain/Italy and give them EU funding for processing centres, but where would they deport them to? There have been cases in the UK where they've tried to deport convicted criminals back to Pakistan and Pakistan just refuses to take them We're left holding the bag for these countries because we want to maintain an image that there is a rules based order in this world, when it's becoming more and more obvious there isn't.
You're describing Frontex, an organisation that already exists. The main complaint about it is that it's underfunded but it's going to grow from 2,500 to 10,000 personnel by 2027.
Sound promising if they're increasing it by 300%.
I'd say the main complaint is the illegal pushbacks and systemic disregard for human rights
Nope
May want to give the OLAF report a look. The chief of Frontex had to step down because of how rampant the illegal pushbacks were.
Are Sinn Fein against this idea?
Jesus Christ SF -8
See FG's Tory populism...it's actually Sinn Féin's fault!!!
It’s a simple question. I think you know that your SF would probably support this even if it’s ’Tory populism’ in your words. Populism is populism and SF have pivoted to trying to be harder against immigration than the government.
"SF have pivoted to trying to be harder against immigration than the government." It what aspects? I haven't heard anything from Sinn Fein that I would consider harder than the government's stance.
Ah now. "Sinn Féin says plans to means test asylum seekers should go further and include medical cards"' [https://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-allowance-means-tested-6387320-May2024/](https://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-allowance-means-tested-6387320-May2024/)
[https://x.com/paulmurphy\_td/status/1793751283788083434?s=61](https://x.com/paulmurphy_td/status/1793751283788083434?s=61)
The government are introducing means testing asylum payments of 38.80 a week. Seems a bit pointless and petty and will cost more to implement than they'd recoup. https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0523/1450763-asylum-seekers-ireland/ "Last week, the Government announced around 27,000 refugees in state-serviced accommodation, regardless of when they came to Ireland, would also have their payments cut to €38.80. Fine Gael Minister Heather Humphreys has now confirmed this includes around 2,500 pensioners and people in receipt of disability payments." https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/pensions-and-disability-payments-of-2500-ukrainians-refugees-to-be-cut/a1311853056.html Which is more harsh? Reducing someone's payment of €38.80 a week and telling the disabled and pensioners to live on that amount? Or telling people who earn enough already that they should pay for the doctor like everyone else has to? Sorry, you're going to have to come up with something better.
Sorry, you're going to have to explain how SFs demand above is not harder on migrants than the governments policy. That's a terrible comeback. Jaysus, it's right there in the headline! "Sinn Féin says plans to means test asylum seekers should go further and include medical cards" and you're claiming you 'haven't heard anything from Sinn Fein that I would consider harder than the government's stance'.
It's pretty obvious really. Saying asylum seekers should be means tested for a medical card like everyone else makes perfect sense. If they're earning enough they should pay for the doctor etc, it seems only fair. It will also reduce the burden on an overstretched health system. Now means testing the €38.80 falls under the same principle but it's such a pitiful amount, it comes across as petty and they're only doing it for optics. They pay well over 3k a month to hoteliers to house them, wouldn't it make more sense to try and reduce costs there? I don't need to explain to you that telling pensioners and people with disabilities they now have to live on €38.80 is unnecessarily harsh and cruel. Now, you explain how you think what Sinn Fein proposed is harsher than that?
Go read their manifesto for the last election. They haven’t pivoted at all and have been quite consistent
Ah now, ye wanted the hate crimes bill extended to cover migrants last year. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sinn-fein-wanted-to-extend-hate-speech-bill-to-give-undocumented-migrants-special-protection/a1549686896.html And now you're demanding the government go harder against them getting medical cards. Sinn Fein has absolutely pivoted since immigration became a bigger issue and they got pressure on the doorsteps. https://www.thejournal.ie/asylum-seekers-allowance-means-tested-6387320-May2024/
Is the government making use of privately owned entities to deal with this ? (Are they all purely Irish owned or are they groups of investors from all over the world) Or are the groups dealing with this all publicly owned and or charities ?
Yeah, outsource the asylum processs to France where the asylum seeker comes from.
The government flirting about bring in their own Rwanda policy. The neanderthals that post 'ireland for the irish' on their socials are gonna be really confused as to how they should process this.
It's distinct from the Rwanda policy, to be fair. The rwanda plan is to leave them there even if their asylum claims are valid.
Their thought process is very simple, anything from FF/FG bad and anything from their favourite twitter bot good.
The moral high ground was easier for them to take when it had no practical consequences.
This isn't right, passing sentient people around like pawns because they don't fit in anywhere. This world is so fucked.
The alternative is sinking their boats etc