The far right

[whitey]

I think you are mixing up fraudulent and refused. There was 74% rejected. Some of those were withdrawn or closed if claimant left the country.
It also includes ones that are going through appeal. They are protected by IPAT (International Protection Appeals Tribunal).
Those that are rejected will receive no benefits other than basic emergency support if they stay on. Imagine how bad things would have to be to want to proceed with that option.
That said. I don't think anyone would have an issue if the government started to handle the process better. Direct provision is not a long term solution. But the ire should 100% be targeted at the Irish government who are failing in their screening and not the 100's of asylum seekers who see DP as their best outcome.

I dont think im mixing up anything

Im just quoting what Michael Martin said

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/10/30/simon-harris-accused-of-going-down-the-nigel-farage-route-over-immigration-comments/

"About 80 per cent are refused on their first stage of the appeal. And that's significant because it really points to what you're looking at here is economic migration, primarily, and basically people shouldn't come to Ireland if they know deep down that they're not going [to be granted asylum]


So if you come under false pretences and are refused, is that not a fraudulent application?

[trueblue1234]

I think you are mixing up fraudulent and refused. There was 74% rejected. Some of those were withdrawn or closed if claimant left the country.
It also includes ones that are going through appeal. They are protected by IPAT (International Protection Appeals Tribunal).
Those that are rejected will receive no benefits other than basic emergency support if they stay on. Imagine how bad things would have to be to want to proceed with that option.
That said. I don't think anyone would have an issue if the government started to handle the process better. Direct provision is not a long term solution. But the ire should 100% be targeted at the Irish government who are failing in their screening and not the 100's of asylum seekers who see DP as their best outcome.

I dont think im mixing up anything

Im just quoting what Michael Martin said

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/10/30/simon-harris-accused-of-going-down-the-nigel-farage-route-over-immigration-comments/

"About 80 per cent are refused on their first stage of the appeal. And that's significant because it really points to what you're looking at here is economic migration, primarily, and basically people shouldn't come to Ireland if they know deep down that they're not going [to be granted asylum]

Sorry didn't mean you. I meant MM. rejected doesn't mean fraudulent.

[whitey]

From RTE report

Minister O'Callaghan also said that over 3,870 deportation orders have been signed so far this year.

With c.14,000 applicants per year = just under 30% didn't qualify.

Isn't that one of the main problems....were not deporting the people who went through and exhausted the legal process

[whitey]

I think you are mixing up fraudulent and refused. There was 74% rejected. Some of those were withdrawn or closed if claimant left the country.
It also includes ones that are going through appeal. They are protected by IPAT (International Protection Appeals Tribunal).
Those that are rejected will receive no benefits other than basic emergency support if they stay on. Imagine how bad things would have to be to want to proceed with that option.
That said. I don't think anyone would have an issue if the government started to handle the process better. Direct provision is not a long term solution. But the ire should 100% be targeted at the Irish government who are failing in their screening and not the 100's of asylum seekers who see DP as their best outcome.

I dont think im mixing up anything

Im just quoting what Michael Martin said

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/10/30/simon-harris-accused-of-going-down-the-nigel-farage-route-over-immigration-comments/

"About 80 per cent are refused on their first stage of the appeal. And that's significant because it really points to what you're looking at here is economic migration, primarily, and basically people shouldn't come to Ireland if they know deep down that they're not going [to be granted asylum]

Sorry didn't mean you. I meant MM. rejected doesn't mean fraudulent.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2025/01/27/ireland-saw-record-number-of-asylum-applicants-in-2024/

"Since November 2022, a total of 15 countries have been designated as safe countries of origin and citizens of those countries who apply for asylum are subject to an accelerated process whereby their applications are dealt with within a period of three months.

There has been a drop of almost 70 per cent in applications from designated safe countries following the introduction of those accelerated procedures"

So the governments mishandling and non/lax enforcement of their own laws has essentially encouraged people who are economic migrants to chance their arm

[trueblue1234]

From RTE report

Minister O'Callaghan also said that over 3,870 deportation orders have been signed so far this year.

With c.14,000 applicants per year = just under 30% didn't qualify.

Isn't that one of the main problems....were not deporting the people who went through and exhausted the legal process

I think the point is that when people protest at the asylum seekers and burning down buildings that house them it's a complete misdirection of anger then. They're targeting the most vulnerable people who are going through enough hell themselves instead of the people responsible. Then when anyone on here points that out by calling these people out you have posters crying about "open borders".

[trueblue1234]

I think you are mixing up fraudulent and refused. There was 74% rejected. Some of those were withdrawn or closed if claimant left the country.
It also includes ones that are going through appeal. They are protected by IPAT (International Protection Appeals Tribunal).
Those that are rejected will receive no benefits other than basic emergency support if they stay on. Imagine how bad things would have to be to want to proceed with that option.
That said. I don't think anyone would have an issue if the government started to handle the process better. Direct provision is not a long term solution. But the ire should 100% be targeted at the Irish government who are failing in their screening and not the 100's of asylum seekers who see DP as their best outcome.

I dont think im mixing up anything

Im just quoting what Michael Martin said

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/10/30/simon-harris-accused-of-going-down-the-nigel-farage-route-over-immigration-comments/

"About 80 per cent are refused on their first stage of the appeal. And that's significant because it really points to what you're looking at here is economic migration, primarily, and basically people shouldn't come to Ireland if they know deep down that they're not going [to be granted asylum]

Sorry didn't mean you. I meant MM. rejected doesn't mean fraudulent.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2025/01/27/ireland-saw-record-number-of-asylum-applicants-in-2024/

"Since November 2022, a total of 15 countries have been designated as safe countries of origin and citizens of those countries who apply for asylum are subject to an accelerated process whereby their applications are dealt with within a period of three months.

There has been a drop of almost 70 per cent in applications from designated safe countries following the introduction of those accelerated procedures"

So the governments mishandling and non/lax enforcement of their own laws has essentially encouraged people who are economic migrants to chance their arm

I'm aware of this. But as I said rejected doesn't mean fraudulent. It included people who withdraw, people without the correct paperwork initially (Common enough when coming from a war torn country), people who leave the country and don't proceed.

[Milltown Row2]

I've said this for a long long time, why are they not protesting outside the politicians homes, where they live, go there with the pitch forks, go to the owners of the hotels that allow the place to be used for financial gain, they aint doing it out of their love for migrants..

Are they being paid off not to? The sheep will always follow the shepherd, and he keeps steering them to the hotels, would get a lot more traction outside the GOV buildings, homes of politicians (that ya all keep voting in) or the owners of these multiple buildings

[Rossfan]

Politicians' homes are private and should be left alone.
Has whitey and the other individual condemned the attempted murder of 28 people in Drogheda (incl a 3 week old baby) yet?

[whitey]

From RTE report

Minister O'Callaghan also said that over 3,870 deportation orders have been signed so far this year.

With c.14,000 applicants per year = just under 30% didn't qualify.

Isn't that one of the main problems....were not deporting the people who went through and exhausted the legal process

I think the point is that when people protest at the asylum seekers and burning down buildings that house them it's a complete misdirection of anger then. They're targeting the most vulnerable people who are going through enough hell themselves instead of the people responsible. Then when anyone on here points that out by calling these people out you have posters crying about "open borders".

Not enforcing your own immigration laws, not deporting people who've exhausted all legal avenues and passively  encouraging fraudulent applicants by not closing loopholes (that other EU countries have closed) is defacto open borders

[Milltown Row2]

Politicians' homes are private and should be left alone.
Has whitey and the other individual condemned the attempted murder of 28 people in Drogheda (incl a 3 week old baby) yet?

They should all be, I'm just questioning why they haven't, I find it odd

[trueblue1234]

There you go, demonstrated perfectly. As I said, condemning arson attacks of accommodation for asylum seekers is not calling for open borders.

[Rossfan]

What's a "closed border?"
Is it like North Korea?
Aren't most Countries' borders controlled, except for Britain's border in Ireland which our Government fought tooth and nail to keep open.
Controlled as in you get through them if you're re entering your own Country, or have a visa/work permit or residency permit OR are applying for International Protection.

The few times I flew into Dublin I had to show my passport which was scanned.
The Q at the non EU/UK/EEA/Switzerland was quite slow moving though.

[whitey]

I think you are mixing up fraudulent and refused. There was 74% rejected. Some of those were withdrawn or closed if claimant left the country.
It also includes ones that are going through appeal. They are protected by IPAT (International Protection Appeals Tribunal).
Those that are rejected will receive no benefits other than basic emergency support if they stay on. Imagine how bad things would have to be to want to proceed with that option.
That said. I don't think anyone would have an issue if the government started to handle the process better. Direct provision is not a long term solution. But the ire should 100% be targeted at the Irish government who are failing in their screening and not the 100's of asylum seekers who see DP as their best outcome.

I dont think im mixing up anything

Im just quoting what Michael Martin said

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2025/10/30/simon-harris-accused-of-going-down-the-nigel-farage-route-over-immigration-comments/

"About 80 per cent are refused on their first stage of the appeal. And that's significant because it really points to what you're looking at here is economic migration, primarily, and basically people shouldn't come to Ireland if they know deep down that they're not going [to be granted asylum]

Sorry didn't mean you. I meant MM. rejected doesn't mean fraudulent.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2025/01/27/ireland-saw-record-number-of-asylum-applicants-in-2024/

"Since November 2022, a total of 15 countries have been designated as safe countries of origin and citizens of those countries who apply for asylum are subject to an accelerated process whereby their applications are dealt with within a period of three months.

There has been a drop of almost 70 per cent in applications from designated safe countries following the introduction of those accelerated procedures"

So the governments mishandling and non/lax enforcement of their own laws has essentially encouraged people who are economic migrants to chance their arm

I'm aware of this. But as I said rejected doesn't mean fraudulent. It included people who withdraw, people without the correct paperwork initially (Common enough when coming from a war torn country), people who leave the country and don't proceed.

Look at what happened with Nigerian applications when a loophole was closed

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/10/12/number-of-nigerian-asylum-seekers-falls-dramatically-under-fast-track-system/

Why wait for thousands of people to pour in-close it up front

[whitey]

There you go, demonstrated perfectly. As I said, condemning arson attacks of accommodation for asylum seekers is not calling for open borders.

The people on here (me included) who want to help legitimate asylum seekers should be absolutely furious at the abuse that's being perpetrated by fraudulent asylum seekers.  All this does is take resources away from those who genuinely need them and creates a lot of il will towards vulnerable people

Pointing out that abuse is rampant isn't some far right talking point-its simple reality and is backed up by both Simon Harris and Michael Martins comments this past week

Attempting to shut down any and all discussion by labeling people as far
Right who disagree with you is simply counter productive

[trueblue1234]

There you go, demonstrated perfectly. As I said, condemning arson attacks of accommodation for asylum seekers is not calling for open borders.

The people on here (me included) who want to help legitimate asylum seekers should be absolutely furious at the abuse that's being perpetrated by fraudulent asylum seekers.  All this does is take resources away from those who genuinely need them and creates a lot of il will towards vulnerable people

Pointing out that abuse is rampant isn't some far right talking point-its simple reality and is backed up by both Simon Harris and Michael Martins comments this past week

Attempting to shut down any and all discussion by labeling people as far
Right who disagree with you is simply counter productive

As is labelling anyone who condemns the actions off knuckledraggers attacking and burning property as "open boarder apologists". You're trying to create a strawman argument.
I'd be interested to hear who on here doesn't want better, more streamlined processes that are both fair and humane and will removed those who have exhausted their options?