Paying people to leave, its show case on the incompetent decadence of Western decay.
I get the intentions of human rights law, i get the logistics of 'sending people back' and i understand why courts get clogged up. are all not purely because people have stupid reasons
Yet we all see the decline of living standards, we need money put on public investment, so shit like this is a slap on the face, even if asylum is still small af, its the optics.
My most numbskull response is, you dont have a strong case on the face of it (doc mandatory), no appeals, prints/face scanned for EU system, off to lambay island for the shittest coldest experience until you get on a flight either home or to the first safe country you passed through. We owe are own before we owe others, if we get in a better position, we can be more lax on these things maybe
I think that's a little simplistic. We are currently paying people to leave because the EU doesn't have a fully functioning migration pact and the EU-UK don't have one at all. Both of those could address current issues and fit into current human rights framework.
Yea, the UK thing is our biggest issue, mess claim up there, come here easy enough. I dont think there is a sharing of info on this front.
As for what an overall EU framework would look like... god knows. Too mainly claim are lodged, the current system gets blocked as a result and states have to spend on people in limbo status. I do want to help people, but at some cost, it becomes too much
Another argument for a United Ireland tbh. The UK is hostile to our interests when it suits them. And they're never going to allow the EU to tell them what their migration system should look like so that's a non starter.
I can't remember if I brought it up in here or in another Irish sub before suggesting it would make more sense if we were in schengen rather than the current CTA situation given our demographics at the moment and the fact that not being in schengen creates many problems for us from the point of view of international ease of business to increasing the price of concert tickets (increased Visa costs and administrative costs to process artists on a European tour, increased insurance costs etc.)
Yup, Irish government totally asleep to the need for an EU-UK migration agreement. UK wants to negotiate with France bilaterally, France will play nice but doesn't want any deal. Ireland should argue to bring them both to the table and get a grown up deal that's consistent with the GFA.
We don't need a migration pact to enforce deportation orders.
We need lots and lots of resources that don't exist:
- a few hundred Gardai dedicated to it
- appropriate detention facilities
- lots of Admin support to make travel arrangements.
Or we could... prevent those claims reaching us and process them when they enter the EU. Not sure there's a country that stands to benefit more from a EU migration pact than Ireland.
There's already a system to prevent that, the non functioning Dublin III system.
That's essentially going to be re-created in a supposedly clearer fashion. But the reality is the minute it is litigated there will be a series of half baked CJEU judgments that overcomplicate it.
And they say the take back procedure timelines are going to be further reduced.... that will make it impossible for overburdened member states to operate the new system.
You can only believe that it will work if you've no experience of the reality on the ground and how these things operate in real life.
The only countries that were able to make the Dublin system work were the ones that delivered a decision to the applicant in person, whereupon they were put on a flight and told they could appeal the decision from wherever they end up. Which is completely against the rules as they exist.
Either paying them is working because they want to leave and don't have the means or it's working because they're grifters and making them leave would cost more. Either way it's cheaper and it works so take the win.
I understand, but that from the framework of accepting the current system. Can we not get more creative and realistic is what im asking, because the optics of paying people, sorry, dogshit as someone that can find a place to live atm
Asylum is what this about, they arent here for the labour market.
And not exactly, we are behind in the fertile trend but yes that is coming soon.
What you mean which is separate are economic migrants , and they def have a use, but tbh, they are used as bandages for gov mismanagement and easily exploited into the enshittification of the Labour Market and housing market. Its unfortunate, because instead of Google or oracle, migrant could help rebuit the construction sector for exame , but God forbid this gov saw the housing supply fixed . We need workers , just not for the most part where they get employed
The issue is that this scenario is not equitable. People seeking asylum are not here because they have the ideal circumstances to do so. we are not paying so that bad actors leave. This is a work around that will obviously catch bad actors, but it will also encourage people who are scared that their applications are fucked to take the money also and leave, even when they do need to seek asylum.
Most people seeking asylum don't have all of the relevant information that you would have if you came into the country through regular means because alot of them came here as a result of opportunity and circumstance. Alot of them won't have official documents, using boats, buses, etc to travel and getting passed around by western asylum organizations in places like England and France where they just want them out.
For some people it's not a choice. They need to prioritize the best method of survival and sometimes that means taking money and being sent home and hoping for the best rather than waiting, being told by everyone to go home, not having every relevant document and finally being sent home with nothing.
This is not a positive for anyone that matters i.e. folks living here or people legitimately seeking asylum. What it does do is give the government a free gotcha during election season where they have good metrics on asylum because the numbers went down with alot of money going to bad actors who, even if they weren't asylum seekers, if processed properly within a system that worked would just become tax payers when we are on the cusp of a massive pension issue for the Gen X generation in the decade or so due to aging populations.
Well i agree with a lot of your points, but, unfortunately reality doesn't live to our intentions, no document trail means more harder to prove claims and legitimate appeals then can be issued, which clogs the system. 1st world bureaucracy cant really function with a mass of good and bad actors entering the system all at once (which to be clear happened since 2022 after lockdowns lifted and we got backblow from Brexit regected claimants). I wish i didnt have to tell people fleeing war and what not, hey you didnt pack your passport etc , no claim is allowed, but thats the reality now.
As for demographics, we are actually ok for the moment compared to most of Europe for a little while longer, we are younger still. Saying that, this problem, idk how we fix. Birthrates are falling everywhere now, even sub Saharan Africa, European models that focus on free childcare / incentives dont work, our lack of cheap basics needs like housing , healthcare , cost of living dont help...etc all this and our economies run on growth models that need constantly more workers (despite what AI will tell you)....... thing is a mess,
But definitely asylum seekers aint and isnt the solution to demographic aging, they stop having kids as quick as us, and they often are either an economic burden or take a long time to contribute after state investment into education. Some lad working for uber putting a taxi man out of job for less than minimum after expenses aint saving an aging economy. I know a few asylum seekers that made it, but for the most part, we do it out of ethical reasons, there's not much productivity short-medium term from people with low skills , low standard work culture and easily exploited by big businesses. Economic migrants different story, but as i said they also have low birthrates more and more, and often , they treated as bandaid to mismanagement and are mismanaged by government.
Idk, i cant make heads or tails, but we cant piss about and say asylum is solving issues when its not (ok bar having more diversity, solves that ill say)
The reasons range from things like their ability to seek employment while in asylum, english speaking country within the EU making it easier to integrate, Brexit and threats of being deported to a different country than their country of origin making the UK undesirable, a comparatively lenient asylum system that doesn't punish them as harshly as others for issues with documentation, etc.
The short answer to the question is safe country =/= safe option. Ireland is the safest option that is available to them and they go to extra lengths to get here because they think it's their best chance to be able to settle down and productively engage in irish society. It's also important to note that both france and england funnel them towards us, offering them amenities to get here so if they make it to France, they are essentially escorted here.
This legislation is part of the problem generally with asylum here though which is creating pull factors that disproportionately support opportunists and actively create dilemma's for genuine asylum seekers. We are essentially giving genuine asylum seekers two choices: Stay and hope for the best, take the money and take your chances which is effectively like giving them a game of deal or no deal. All of this is while people gaming the system are laughing all the way to the bank.
This legislation is KPI and metric focused because this government is doing horribly since day one and they want the perception of a win. This is not a win for anyone except the governments PR when they get pressed on yet another failing.
one asylum seeker I know left the first european country after a racist attack, they said Ireland was friendlier.
honestly you can't blame someone who fled one unsafe country to not want to get curb stomped by European fascists.
they've worked here since they could legally so its a win for Ireland as well, we get a decent enough person and they get to not live in fear, good for everyone who's not a melt
I think tbh the English speaking country argument is a trojan horse tho. Its a ubiquitous linqua franca , that means you dont have to engage with the culture as much, you can exist in this globalized anglophone identity than engage with irish society. Like i do meet people that completely vibe here, but then i do meet people, who have been here 10 years , completely braindead to irish society, they speak english but dont integrate. Not statistics though, this is purely my experience.
Also, this a very anglophone argument, you move somewhere with different language, its actually pretty easy to learn it that way by pure immersion.
There's fors and against 'they know the language' arguement' but i dont buy the 'oh they'll feel comfortable in english' as if learning a new smaller language isnt going to actually help you more to integrate than gobal linguage franca. I speak one language way better from learning by immersion where as one i learned in school, its very chanky in social queues
got a source for that? figures from the department show Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan made up over half of all applicants. A quick google would tell you all three of those countries are experiencing some level of conflict. So at least a small majority are coming from conflict zones and as you said thats not the only grounds for asylum
so all those people at least have a right to have their cases heard
Undoubtedly some are chancers and took the easy money. Some may have seen a change in their country or situation and took this as a chance to leave. Maybe some arrived here and realised this place isn't perfect either or that living in aslyum accommodation wasn't doable any longer. I think it's easy to conclude that means they're all conartists but I am sure there's a lot of reasons why people make these decisions.
I also wouldn't think that €10,000 per family once converted into some currencies isn't nothing.
Paying people to leave, its show case on the incompetent decadence of Western decay.
I get the intentions of human rights law, i get the logistics of 'sending people back' and i understand why courts get clogged up. are all not purely because people have stupid reasons
Yet we all see the decline of living standards, we need money put on public investment, so shit like this is a slap on the face, even if asylum is still small af, its the optics.
My most numbskull response is, you dont have a strong case on the face of it (doc mandatory), no appeals, prints/face scanned for EU system, off to lambay island for the shittest coldest experience until you get on a flight either home or to the first safe country you passed through. We owe are own before we owe others, if we get in a better position, we can be more lax on these things maybe
I think that's a little simplistic. We are currently paying people to leave because the EU doesn't have a fully functioning migration pact and the EU-UK don't have one at all. Both of those could address current issues and fit into current human rights framework.
Yea, the UK thing is our biggest issue, mess claim up there, come here easy enough. I dont think there is a sharing of info on this front.
As for what an overall EU framework would look like... god knows. Too mainly claim are lodged, the current system gets blocked as a result and states have to spend on people in limbo status. I do want to help people, but at some cost, it becomes too much
Another argument for a United Ireland tbh. The UK is hostile to our interests when it suits them. And they're never going to allow the EU to tell them what their migration system should look like so that's a non starter.
yea it actually, is idk why its never brought up much
I can't remember if I brought it up in here or in another Irish sub before suggesting it would make more sense if we were in schengen rather than the current CTA situation given our demographics at the moment and the fact that not being in schengen creates many problems for us from the point of view of international ease of business to increasing the price of concert tickets (increased Visa costs and administrative costs to process artists on a European tour, increased insurance costs etc.)
Anyway, got downvoted to oblivion.
Yup, Irish government totally asleep to the need for an EU-UK migration agreement. UK wants to negotiate with France bilaterally, France will play nice but doesn't want any deal. Ireland should argue to bring them both to the table and get a grown up deal that's consistent with the GFA.
We don't need a migration pact to enforce deportation orders.
We need lots and lots of resources that don't exist: - a few hundred Gardai dedicated to it - appropriate detention facilities - lots of Admin support to make travel arrangements.
Or we could... prevent those claims reaching us and process them when they enter the EU. Not sure there's a country that stands to benefit more from a EU migration pact than Ireland.
There's already a system to prevent that, the non functioning Dublin III system.
That's essentially going to be re-created in a supposedly clearer fashion. But the reality is the minute it is litigated there will be a series of half baked CJEU judgments that overcomplicate it.
And they say the take back procedure timelines are going to be further reduced.... that will make it impossible for overburdened member states to operate the new system.
You can only believe that it will work if you've no experience of the reality on the ground and how these things operate in real life.
The only countries that were able to make the Dublin system work were the ones that delivered a decision to the applicant in person, whereupon they were put on a flight and told they could appeal the decision from wherever they end up. Which is completely against the rules as they exist.
I don't understand why you'd argue the current system isn't working as opposition to a new system. We need a new system.
Because the new system is identical to the old one that doesn't work.
see doing that means sending a shit ton of money to a few member states assuming they agree to it
As opposed to the shit ton of money we're spending currently
not sure why a statement of fact got down voted,
difference is were spending it here so to the government there's a logical appeal.
either way asylum seekers need to be accommodated and processed somewhere
great, more money... i can see that getting complicated vast and some scandals on rights abuses... slippy
sorry i have to play the devils advocate . Cold island to give up not do as i said in the original comment?
Either paying them is working because they want to leave and don't have the means or it's working because they're grifters and making them leave would cost more. Either way it's cheaper and it works so take the win.
I understand, but that from the framework of accepting the current system. Can we not get more creative and realistic is what im asking, because the optics of paying people, sorry, dogshit as someone that can find a place to live atm
Our politicians did it on purpose , our fertility rate went off a cliff and those workers needed to be replaced.
Asylum is what this about, they arent here for the labour market.
And not exactly, we are behind in the fertile trend but yes that is coming soon.
What you mean which is separate are economic migrants , and they def have a use, but tbh, they are used as bandages for gov mismanagement and easily exploited into the enshittification of the Labour Market and housing market. Its unfortunate, because instead of Google or oracle, migrant could help rebuit the construction sector for exame , but God forbid this gov saw the housing supply fixed . We need workers , just not for the most part where they get employed
The issue is that this scenario is not equitable. People seeking asylum are not here because they have the ideal circumstances to do so. we are not paying so that bad actors leave. This is a work around that will obviously catch bad actors, but it will also encourage people who are scared that their applications are fucked to take the money also and leave, even when they do need to seek asylum.
Most people seeking asylum don't have all of the relevant information that you would have if you came into the country through regular means because alot of them came here as a result of opportunity and circumstance. Alot of them won't have official documents, using boats, buses, etc to travel and getting passed around by western asylum organizations in places like England and France where they just want them out.
For some people it's not a choice. They need to prioritize the best method of survival and sometimes that means taking money and being sent home and hoping for the best rather than waiting, being told by everyone to go home, not having every relevant document and finally being sent home with nothing.
This is not a positive for anyone that matters i.e. folks living here or people legitimately seeking asylum. What it does do is give the government a free gotcha during election season where they have good metrics on asylum because the numbers went down with alot of money going to bad actors who, even if they weren't asylum seekers, if processed properly within a system that worked would just become tax payers when we are on the cusp of a massive pension issue for the Gen X generation in the decade or so due to aging populations.
Well i agree with a lot of your points, but, unfortunately reality doesn't live to our intentions, no document trail means more harder to prove claims and legitimate appeals then can be issued, which clogs the system. 1st world bureaucracy cant really function with a mass of good and bad actors entering the system all at once (which to be clear happened since 2022 after lockdowns lifted and we got backblow from Brexit regected claimants). I wish i didnt have to tell people fleeing war and what not, hey you didnt pack your passport etc , no claim is allowed, but thats the reality now.
As for demographics, we are actually ok for the moment compared to most of Europe for a little while longer, we are younger still. Saying that, this problem, idk how we fix. Birthrates are falling everywhere now, even sub Saharan Africa, European models that focus on free childcare / incentives dont work, our lack of cheap basics needs like housing , healthcare , cost of living dont help...etc all this and our economies run on growth models that need constantly more workers (despite what AI will tell you)....... thing is a mess,
But definitely asylum seekers aint and isnt the solution to demographic aging, they stop having kids as quick as us, and they often are either an economic burden or take a long time to contribute after state investment into education. Some lad working for uber putting a taxi man out of job for less than minimum after expenses aint saving an aging economy. I know a few asylum seekers that made it, but for the most part, we do it out of ethical reasons, there's not much productivity short-medium term from people with low skills , low standard work culture and easily exploited by big businesses. Economic migrants different story, but as i said they also have low birthrates more and more, and often , they treated as bandaid to mismanagement and are mismanaged by government.
Idk, i cant make heads or tails, but we cant piss about and say asylum is solving issues when its not (ok bar having more diversity, solves that ill say)
If they're "prioritizing survival" why are they traveling across Europe to the country with the best benefits?
Surely the first safe country would be heaven and they'd be kissing the ground.
The reasons range from things like their ability to seek employment while in asylum, english speaking country within the EU making it easier to integrate, Brexit and threats of being deported to a different country than their country of origin making the UK undesirable, a comparatively lenient asylum system that doesn't punish them as harshly as others for issues with documentation, etc.
The short answer to the question is safe country =/= safe option. Ireland is the safest option that is available to them and they go to extra lengths to get here because they think it's their best chance to be able to settle down and productively engage in irish society. It's also important to note that both france and england funnel them towards us, offering them amenities to get here so if they make it to France, they are essentially escorted here.
This legislation is part of the problem generally with asylum here though which is creating pull factors that disproportionately support opportunists and actively create dilemma's for genuine asylum seekers. We are essentially giving genuine asylum seekers two choices: Stay and hope for the best, take the money and take your chances which is effectively like giving them a game of deal or no deal. All of this is while people gaming the system are laughing all the way to the bank.
This legislation is KPI and metric focused because this government is doing horribly since day one and they want the perception of a win. This is not a win for anyone except the governments PR when they get pressed on yet another failing.
one asylum seeker I know left the first european country after a racist attack, they said Ireland was friendlier.
honestly you can't blame someone who fled one unsafe country to not want to get curb stomped by European fascists.
they've worked here since they could legally so its a win for Ireland as well, we get a decent enough person and they get to not live in fear, good for everyone who's not a melt
I think tbh the English speaking country argument is a trojan horse tho. Its a ubiquitous linqua franca , that means you dont have to engage with the culture as much, you can exist in this globalized anglophone identity than engage with irish society. Like i do meet people that completely vibe here, but then i do meet people, who have been here 10 years , completely braindead to irish society, they speak english but dont integrate. Not statistics though, this is purely my experience.
Also, this a very anglophone argument, you move somewhere with different language, its actually pretty easy to learn it that way by pure immersion.
There's fors and against 'they know the language' arguement' but i dont buy the 'oh they'll feel comfortable in english' as if learning a new smaller language isnt going to actually help you more to integrate than gobal linguage franca. I speak one language way better from learning by immersion where as one i learned in school, its very chanky in social queues
Agree with everything else tho
Pure incompetence from the Irish Government as usual. Just deport them. We owe them nothing.
This is way easier than going through the courts .
[removed]
Most of the claims are not coming from places at war, but that is not the only legitimate aslyum claim.
got a source for that? figures from the department show Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan made up over half of all applicants. A quick google would tell you all three of those countries are experiencing some level of conflict. So at least a small majority are coming from conflict zones and as you said thats not the only grounds for asylum
so all those people at least have a right to have their cases heard
[removed]
Undoubtedly some are chancers and took the easy money. Some may have seen a change in their country or situation and took this as a chance to leave. Maybe some arrived here and realised this place isn't perfect either or that living in aslyum accommodation wasn't doable any longer. I think it's easy to conclude that means they're all conartists but I am sure there's a lot of reasons why people make these decisions.
I also wouldn't think that €10,000 per family once converted into some currencies isn't nothing.
[removed]
This comment / post was removed because it violates the following sub rule:
[R2] Respect Others
Debate the topic, not the person.
Personal insults, abusive or hostile language — whether aimed at other users or public figures — will not be tolerated.
You can challenge ideas, but you must do so constructively.
This comment / post was removed because it violates the following sub rule:
[R2] Respect Others
Debate the topic, not the person.
Personal insults, abusive or hostile language — whether aimed at other users or public figures — will not be tolerated.
You can challenge ideas, but you must do so constructively.
This comment / post was removed because it violates the following sub rule:
[R2] Respect Others
Debate the topic, not the person.
Personal insults, abusive or hostile language — whether aimed at other users or public figures — will not be tolerated.
You can challenge ideas, but you must do so constructively.
some civil servant saw trailer park boys and thought 'heres 10 dollars to fuck off' was a great policy idea'