Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THIS APARTMENT CLOSE to Barrow Street and Dublin city centre would be the perfect pad for a young professional or professional couple.
It’s a one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment in the grounds of the old Gasworks and as it’s at the heart of the Silicon Docks, there are lots of other young professionals living nearby, as well as having access to the city centre and the nearby Dart line.
The apartment is large with floor-to-ceiling glazing in the living room and bedrooms. It is up for auction on the 15 October starting at €250,000.
This three-bedroom apartment is situated in the heart of the K Club development – Ryder Cup Village.
The development is set within the walls of a restored Georgian estate and is beside the Hotel and Country Club as well as the Spa.
The apartment itself has many excellent features such as ceiling coving, a marble fireplace and hearth in the living room as well as hardwood floors and French doors to the back garden.
All the bedrooms have hardwood floors and built-in floor-to-ceiling wardrobes and bay windows, while the master bedroom also has an en-suite.
It is on the market for €250,000.
This four bedroom detached house in Enniscorthy is architecturally designed and extremely spacious. It features a marble-tiled floor throughout the ground floor (bar the living room), a kitchen with granite worktops and extensive floor and wall cabinets, a living room with a cutstone fireplace and a walnut floor.
The property is on a corner plot of Spencer’s Court and close to a large number of amenities in nearby Enniscorthy.
It is on the market for €250,000.
This four-bedroom three-bathroom detached house in Limerick has two reception rooms (one is a family room) with walnut floors and a bespoke fireplace. In the kitchen there are solid timber cabinets with high-polished granite worktops with cream tile floors and integrated appliances.
Upstairs, there are four double bedrooms and the master bedroom features a walk-in wardrobe and an en-suite.
The attic is partially floored providing additional storage space.
It is on the market for €250,000.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
1. It creates an incentive to circumvent normal immigration procedures if you are afforded all the same rights and privileges by just claiming to be fleeing persecution.
2. Their bed and board are provided by the state. Not so for most native and legitimate immigrant labour. Therefore low skilled asylum seekers can undercut labour that’s here legitimately.
3. they are in processing centres primarily because the validity of their asylum claim remains under question, so your assumption that they have been “forced to flee” and “had no choice” but to come here is false. If those things are proven to be the case by individual asylum seekers then rights to access jobs and social services will greatly increase.
Until right to remain is firmly established it makes sense to impose restrictions.
@Liam Doyle: get on early with the facts. All going well the author will remove the article
@Liam Doyle: well done. This is a stupid article. The facts as you outlined are the reasons.
@Liam Doyle:
4. It further incentivises people to undertake an extremely dangerous crossing of the mediterranean at the mercy of unscrupulous people traffickers.
@Walt Jabsco: I’m highly critical of the asylum system. However I have no real issue with the current permit system. The article is a crock of SJW guilt-p0rn though.
@mike scott: the permit system for work is correct, the problem we have is EU level processing times for a tiny asylum seeking number. It’s entirely clear that those questioning the asylum process are doing it for entirely racist reasons, and that is their right to think I’d this, even if they are incorrect (most are economic and we should assume their asylum request is invalid, there are too many in the system). We should have a leaner system for processing, and the majority of asylum claims can be validated quicker while remaining legal (we have international obligations). If it takes 6 months and we haven’t proven they were not genuinely seeking asylum, then they should be granted refugee status, otherwise deported as soon as possible to prevent integration links being formed.
@Liam Doyle: all true Liam but lefties especially women think that asylum seekers don’t lie, they would never do that. This is how naive they are.
@Liam Doyle: I agree completely with the article. What a shame that mean-minded begrudgery is so prevalent on our self-obsessed little island. Picking on the powerless seems to have become a national pastime.
The Minister for Justice’s decision is doesn’t represent me either.
@Brendan O’Brien:
No. Ignoring the native majority has become policy.
@Brendan O’Brien: well said, the blindness of some of the contributions here is staggering. As we look back over the last 100 years, how many families who enjoy comfortable standards today are only able to do so because of the aunt or uncle who sent money home back in the day? How many Irish are working illegally in the US because they chose to try and make a life for themselves when they couldn’t here? So sad that we forget our history. And how many sons and daughters of immigrants here and in the UK are now professionals, contributing to society?
I hope some of the smug, judgemental and heartless people commenting here will soon fall on seriously tough times themselves and have nobody to help them. Maybe that way they will learn a little about compassion and humanity. It’s a lesson they badly need to learn.
They also need to find the imagination to be able to put themselves in someone else’s shoes, even if that person doesn’t look them and speaks a different language (as did many of our ancestors who fled abroad during the Famine). We are all human beings. We all have rights.
@Brendan O’Brien: that’s good, I certainly wouldn’t expect everyone to agree with me, I was just outlining what I felt were valid criticisms of the proposals that don’t appear to have been addressed in the article.
I notice you don’t even attempt to address those criticisms either, merely state your disagreement before casting aspersions on my moral character (begrudging, mean spirited) for having the temerity to hold a contrary opinion to yourself. A slightly subtle ad hominem really. To be honest, in the few short days I’ve interacted with you I’ve come to expect nothing better than dishonest and fallacious forms of discourse anyway, so not sure why I’m surprised
@Liam Doyle: I’m not going to do your fatuous list the honour of taking it seriously. Sorcha’s article states the case for common decency and generosity of spirit. Of course asylum seekers should be allowed to work and contribute to the economy in a meaningful way: that will benefit everyone.
Pretending to care about other immigrants being disadvantaged is particularly dishonest, coming from someone who is obsessed with alleged IQ differences between ‘races’.
Join the human race, Liam. Face up to whatever it was that made you so hard-hearted and begrudging in the first place. And for God’s sake be honest about your real motives.
A right-wing agenda based on an exaggerated sense of ‘them and us’ is not going to make anyone truly happy.
Once the Irish people were known as friendly and hospitable. What went wrong?
@Brendan O’Brien: you won’t do it the honour of treating it seriously because you are unable to counter the points raised with reason, so instead you appeal to emotion and assume a moral superiority to anyone who questions you. this is common amongst ideologues of all hues, because they have not formed their opinions through logic and reason, but rather through viewing issues through a presupposed ideological lens. And for God’s sake, be honest about your inability to engage in civilised discourse devoid of fallacy.
Not sure what referencing previous debates you failed to counter points on but instead appealed to emotion before running away is supposed to highlight. That your self assumed moral superiority at play again?
@Brendan O’Brien:
Mass immigration and enforced diversity. Without a mandate.
@Liam Doyle: A working group set up by the government looked into this issue in great detail in 2015. From its report’s executive summary:
‘Many of the human costs associated with the ban on access to employment are similar to the negative impacts of living long term in Direct Provision. These include: boredom, isolation and social exclusion; obsolescence of skills and creation of dependency; and negative impacts on physical, emotional and mental health. The right to work has also been a priority focus of commentators, academics and NGOs, given that Ireland’s position is out of line with the policy of the majority of EU Member States on this matter, including the United Kingdom.
53. Having regard to the foregoing, the Working Group recommends that provision for access to the labour market for protection applicants who are awaiting a first instance decision for nine months or more, and who have cooperated with the protection process (under the relevant statutory provisions), should be commenced when the single procedure is operating efficiently. This recommendation reflects the minimum standard across other Member States and takes account of the fact that, under the current statutory arrangements, first instance decisions in respect of refugee status and subsidiary protection do not (in the normal course) issue within nine months at present.’
@Liam Doyle: As for moral superiority to a far-right comments-section ranter? That can be taken as read, I hope, but it’s not important. What’s important is that poor and powerless people in this country be treated with dignity and respect.
An article from a year ago that I happened to come across, about Dejan Lovren’s experiences as a refugee.
It could be any of us: we’re just lucky that it isn’t.
I think it’s terribly disappointing to see hundreds of people apparently opposing the sentiments in the article, and virtually nobody supporting it. That is not what we really are as a country, I hope.
@Brendan O’Brien: just because someone has a problem or issues with immigration and large scale immigration at that. It does not make them far right.
@Brendan O’Brien:
The logical extension of your argument is completely open borders for anyone who wishes to come here. How do you see that working out?
Genuine question.
@Paul Hughes: That’s true. If they have a strong interest in old studies on alleged IQ differences between ‘races’, though, that might cause me to wonder as to their motivation.
@Walt Jabsco: I don’t see that as a logical extension of my argument. I do think we could have done a lot more in response to the refugee crises of recent years. We tend to think of immigration as something that’s fine when the Irish do it.
@Brendan O’Brien: you assume people questioning effects of mass immigration on Irish society are somehow morally inferior?
@Brendan O’Brien: first, no your moral superiority is not “read”, that’s just your own arrogance and sense of self importance speaking.
Secondly, while your comment/copy pasta was long it still failed to address any of the the points I raised, so serves only as deflection.
Sorry to hear you’re disappointed a lot of people appear to agree with my POV on the matter, but bear in mind argumentum ad popularum is fallacy so don’t let it colour your views. That said, expressions of disappointment lieu of substantive argument to the contrary appears to be a common debating tactic of yours. it is again founded in your erroneous and arrogant belief in your own sense of moral superiority, which is in itself a form of fallacy.
@Liam Doyle: What the extract I pasted shows is that your objections are irrelevant: they were not seen as valid objections by actual experts appointed by the state who looked into the matter carefully. Otherwise the lengthy report of the Working Group would have mentioned them. It didn’t. (I had occasion to read the whole thing back in 2015.)
Perhaps an addendum will now need to be issued (‘Oh, hang on – some bloke with an agenda in a comments section thinks we’re wrong …’).
@Valthebear: No, I don’t. We are not talking about ‘mass immigration’.
@Brendan O’Brien: it doesn’t matter how old a study is, until its conclusions are refuted it remains topical and up to date. Would you support us disregarding newton’s gravitational theories because they were published a long time ago?
Liam, I am not going to start debating IQ and ‘race’ with you. I’m sure there are alt-right websites where you can enjoy that kind of thing among like-minded folk.
@Brendan O’Brien: OK, but again it’s because you can’t. You delusion of self importance leads you to believe that you ignoring topics negates their validity. The political sea changes across the western world in recent years should correct that false assumption, alas your ego won’t permit that reality cloud your arrogance.
@Brendan O’Brien: not seen as valid objections by experts does not mean the arguments are wrong or invalid. That’s an appeal to authority. Do you actually know what fallacy is, or do you engage in it persistently on purpose?
@Brendan O’Brien:
So if it’s not a logical extension of your argument please state who you’re going to prevent from coming here, and how that makes you any different from most other commenters on this thread.
@Walt Jabsco: Laws are in place regarding immigration. Where I differ from most commenters here is in insisting that everyone in this country has human rights.
@Liam Doyle: The appeal to authority fallacy means using an ‘authority’ as evidence in your argument when they are not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.
Clearly that is not relevant here: they ARE an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. That’s precisely why they were chosen in the first place.
So, sadly, your comment is idiotic.
@Brendan O’Brien:
“Laws are in place regarding immigration”.
And by definition most asylum seekers are here illegally. They’re legally obliged to claim asylum in the first safe country they set foot in. How many asylum seekers arrived here directly by boat rather than passing through several other safe countries en route?
As soon as they pass through a safe country they are now by definition economic migrants which brings me back to my original question, if you don’t believe in open borders then who are you going to prevent from coming here and how does that make you any different from most of the other commenters on this thread?
Virtue signalling is great until someone starts putting the hard questions to you.
@Brendan O’Brien: appeal to authority: an assertion deemed to be true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. So we’ve moved on from fallacy to just openly lying now I see. Impressive
@Walt Jabsco: I’m not sure that your ‘They’re legally obliged to claim asylum in the first safe country they set foot in’ is accurate. From this UNHCR link: ‘Do I have to apply for asylum in the first country I enter in Europe?’ ‘No.’
http://www.orac.ie/website/orac/oracwebsite.nsf/page/eudublinIIIregulation-main-en
@Liam Doyle: You can find any definition you want on the Internet. I see that you found yours on a discussion board:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/logical-fallacy-appeal-to-authority.90490/
Now go and find one from a reputable source.
@Brendan O’Brien: that’s not where I got it, and attacking sources is pathetic. Appeal to authority is accepting validity based on the authority of those making an assertion, and not on the methodology used to reach the supposedly authoritative conclusions. It’s how people unfamiliar with the scientific method tend to reach conclusions, because their ignorance hampers their ability to reach conclusions logically and scientifically. Don’t much care what internet definitions of widely understood phrases happen to say, as this is common knowledge
@Brendan O’Brien:
You should
@Liam Doyle: You have to SHOW that the views of the Working Group are false in some way: you can’t just assert that, as an average punter. ‘Appeal to authority fallacy’ doesn’t imply that anyone who spouts any old nonsense is correct.
This is the membership: I think it’s fair to say that it has more expertise than might be contained in that head of yours.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Membership_of_the_Working_Group
@Brendan O’Brien:
You should have read your own link – that’s conditional on the asylum seekers having family members already in the country, and as such is the exception to the rule (as I suspect you already know).
This may clarify:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position
(UK article but relevant sections apply to all EU countries).
Either way, I see you chose not to answer my question again, so I’ll ask you for a third time:
Either you’re
1) In favour of open borders
or
2) You believe that numbers of migrants need to be controlled in some way, in which case who are you going to prevent from coming here and how does that make you different from most of the commenters on this thread?
@Brendan O’Brien: I never questioned their views or even their methodology. You used their conclusions to reject my arguments. That’s the appeal to authority.
@Walt Jabsco: The situation as laid out in the Guardian article is much more complex than you are admitting: it is not ‘conditional on the asylum seekers having family members already in the country’. For example, ‘states *may* lawfully remove asylum seekers to safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there’, but there is no obligation on them to do so.
I am not in favour of open borders, although they could probably do with being more open (I am not an expert on the rules pertaining). Clearly we have a system in place currently.
What I am taking issue with is the assumption of almost everyone here that asylum seekers are essentially a bad thing. They are not – they are just people.
@Brendan O’Brien:
So which of these people would you exclude and why?
If you can’t answer that then you do indeed believe in open borders.
These are the tough questions that virtue signallers tend to run from.
@Walt Jabsco: Clearly each case is looked at according to its merits: a system is in place. I might tend to more lenient than the people making the decisions (I don’t know), but that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that people who are in the system for a long time are prevented from leading any kind of normal life.
Why anyone would wish to ‘signal virtue’ to assorted extremists and begrudgers is not clear to me. Challenging an inhumane right-wing consensus is not particularly rewarding, but someone’s got to do it or this country really will become a hellhole.
I don’t like the default attitude of suspicion and hostility towards anyone who is perceived to be ‘different’.
@Brendan O’Brien:
So you think that numbers of immigrants need to be controlled but you’re not prepared to say how this should happen, who you would exclude or why.
Throughout this thread your posts have tried to portray an air of moral superiority but at the end of the day you’re not much different to most of the commenters on here who you perjoritively describe as ‘right-wingers’.
You just think you are.
@Walt Jabsco: Why should I give a detailed plan for overhaul of the immigration laws? There is no onus on me to do that. I’m asking that they be applied fairly; I would also have liked us to take more Syrian refugees during the recent crisis, for example. We are a relatively rich country with the responsibilities that brings.
Whether or not you think I’m different to others on this thread does not interest me. You’ve vouchsafed to give me plenty of your time in any case.
@Brendan O’Brien:
Like you I have no problem with providing for genuine asylum seekers until such time (if ever) that it becomes safe for them to return to their country of origin.
Where it becomes much more of a moral dilemma is with economic migrants or failed asylum seekers though.
The reason I’ve responded primarily to you is your disparaging remarks directed at other commenters where (as far as I can see) your views really aren’t all that different.
@Walt Jabsco: So, do you agree with Sorcha’s Grisewood’s article?
@Brendan O’Brien: Just because you agree with it does not mean it should be allowed. Did it ever occur to you that majority of the native Irish people did not ask for and do not want an invasion of migrants into this little island, do you think that because you and a few like you are fine with it that it is OK to forever change the face of this country. Tell me do you also get involved when it comes to our own powerless people like the homeless and underprivileged, or is it just the migrants cause you are interested in.
@Brendan O’Brien:
I think it’s reasonable to allow asylum seekers to look for work whilst their application is processed, on the clear condition and understanding that if their application is subsequently rejected and they’re deemed to be illegal economic migrants that whatever employment status they may have will not be taken into consideration when a decision is made on deportation.
Unlike the author though, I’m not naive enough to think that every ‘asylum seeker’ is genuine.
And nor am I foolish enough to think that every economic migrant should be allowed to stay.
@Brendan O’Brien: Maybe when we started to be taken advantage of because of our porosity. Do not take the Irish for fools, we did not fight for out freedom for over 800 years to just hand over our country and nationality to African migrants.
@Tom&Gerry: genorosity.
@Brendan O’Brien: Hi Brendan. The recommendations of the Working Group would disqualify almost every single asylum-seeker in direct provision from entitlement to seek work. Almost all of those in DP for more than 9 months are people whose first application has been heard, and the claim for asylum or protection has been deemed to be unfounded. In fact, all but a few will also have had their appeal determined and refused at that stage. Almost the entirety of those currently in DP for any extended period come into one of two categories: 1. Those whos asylum claims have been deemed unfounded on first instance and on appeal and are in the process of challenging their deportation on technical grounds by way of legally aided judicial review. 2. Those who have frustrated the ability of the immigration system to determine their applications because they have destroyed the documentation they used to get here (either to prevent their real country of origin being discovered, or that their asylum application has been determined and refused elsewhere).
You don’t seem to make the distinction between asylum seekers and economic migrants.
@Walt Jabsco: By that token, should all the economic migrants from Ireland that went to the UK and USA for last couple of hundred years have been sent back here? I’m sure you had some family that did that.
@Walt Jabsco: there is no difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.
@John Cassidy: Don’t equate the Irish emigrating to USA with what is happening in our country. There is absolutely no comparison. The Irish did not go to tiny countries expecting the host state to provide them with a house and a weekly allowance.
@John Cassidy:
The vast majority did so legally. If illegals in the US are caught it’s hard to defend their position whoever they are.
@John Cassidy: i just had to leave the states after living there for 30 years illegally,
Now in damp ireland,,don’t feel I should agree with letting people in here Elegaly.
@John Cassidy: First of all I completely agree with fairness to migrants. But on the point of the Irish, true, they went to the UK because that country was responsible for their plight; and they went to the US where they worked for everything – nothing was handed out to them. At least, imperfect as the situation in Ireland is today, migrants have a safe roof and a minimum of provisions till they are sorted. The Irish had nothing and no laws protected them from being treated like dogs or worse. I am proud of this country – my home for 3 decades almost and do not like disparaging its folk
Heres a tip to the author.
Give up journalism.
Because asylum seekers would become job seekers.
Any journalist out there, As soon as they appear the tide will turn.
@Georgio Zizek: Thats a very fair point from a policital point of view, however while not the same, all jobseekers allowance seekers who go on a course regardless of suitability are removed from unemployment figures. Irish culture continues to be I AM ALRIGHT JACK FCCK U, history in 50,60,70′s allows that, unfortunatily we OLD FARTS are still alive, but only those sad people (incl so called dellunsional TDs) wou have never got a bus, made a mobile call and what is a computer?? SIMPLE TEST Ask them?? then ask ask them a simple basic question?? LOGANS RUN was in theory a brilliant movie!! ALL PEOPLE over 60 – 65 DIED by Choice LOOK at the World Now. >>>>>>>>>>
@B.J.Elmes: __ What?
What a naive woman . Heaven help us if people with this type of mentality ever gain power .
@Ken Hayden: naivety might be a kind word to describe this lady and others like her. She really hasn’t a clue about history and the real world .
@Ken Hayden: it does reek of lefty naivety. Very much a we are the world vibe. Totally detached from reality.
@mike scott: She is a teacher, therefore her job will not be threatened by cheaper labor coming into the country.I wonder if they were allowed to compete with her for a job would she be so welcoming.
@Ken Hayden: I’d guess middle class lives in a nice suburb follows and buys in to everything that AJ+ posts on their facebook page
Most asylum seekers in DP are bogus who have absolutely no right to be here without going through proper immigration procedures. They are here because of our very generous welfare system, nothing else. You cannot just let people with no documents, no background checks and no English off into the workforce!!.. The naivety in this article is stunning, especially for a teacher. I hope you don’t push this social justice nonsense onto your students.
@Dj: not entirely disagreeing with you, but our welfare system by comparison to a lot of our EU brethren is not “very generous”.
Seems kind of stupid I f this is a persons sole reason for seeking asylum in Ireland, given we’re an island, and there are much more generous social welfare systems en route.
@Dj: agree for the most part. I think most people come here to work. Which while understandable we don’t have the capacity, money or skills to take in people in that way and in large volumes. Most asylum seekers are net drains on the Exchequer as far as I can see.
@mike scott: If you want to come here to work then go through the correct procedures like everybody else. It’s a recipe for disaster with the situation we have now with people turning up on the shore with no verification of who they actually are. Yes there are genuine refugees who need to be helped but unfortunately their cases are lost between all the other bogus ones which takes years to filter through. It’s a complete disaster from top to bottom and none of the issues that need to be addressed are been addressed.
@Quango: what other countries an route have a more generous welfare system??????
@Quango:
Here in Galway City it was reported in the local press that an African man who has been here ten years and has never worked is demanding a bigger free house. He wants a 6 bed house, from his current 4 bed house. Why? He has a wife and three daughters. Blaming his wife for not having sons he has taken in another woman, got her pregnant and then blamed her for giving him another daughter. So he says 7 people need a 7 bed house.
When asked why he doesn’t work, he said: “Work is hard, welfare is easy”
Welcome to Ireland
Anecdotal examples like that don’t prove that Ireland is more generous than anywhere else. I’m sure there’s similar examples in every western country.
Most of the mainland EU countries and Scandinavia all have more beneficial welfare regimes. Skipping these to come to Ireland with a poorer social welfare record by comparison solely for this purpose seems like a bit of an own goal.
I’d say it’s more likely that people would choose here for the higher wages on offer (Ireland’s minimum wage is two and half times Malta’s).
@Quango: They come for the benefits and because they know they will be treated better than the natives, they know all this before they even get here.You are very very naive.
@Tom&Gerry: that’s very presumptuous of you. In fact I know quite a deal about social policies across the EU, and I’m confident in pointing out that Ireland’s social welfare system is poor in comparison to our peers. That’s not an opinion, that’s fact.
Have a read of some of Esping-Andersen’s research if you’d like some sources.
Bearing this in mind, it seems very counter intuitive for someone determined to take a benefits system for a ride to choose Ireland as their destination.
Surely migrants fleeing persecution must claim assylum in the first country they arrive in? Did they come by boat directly to Ireland?
Just saying becaus otherwise it looks like Ireland is their first choice because we’re a soft touch
@Kevin Slater: Obviously they don’t have to claim asylum in the first country they come to.
@Ron North:
Actually they do – the first *safe* country anyway.
The courts are letting us down again and again. with appeal after appeal. it’s great if your a lawyer though.
This is a painfully stupid article. Asylum seekers are in Ireland to have their application for asylum determined. That’s their legal basis. If you come from outside the EU or EFTA states and certain other states then you probably need a work permit or visa to work in Ireland. The author suggests we should waive this because people self declare as asylum seekers. Why bother having a border at all? Why bother having any system to limit access to our labour market at all to overseas workers. Let ‘me all in.
She seems to believe that all people who seek asylum are legitimate. They aren’t. The figures prove it. Most are economic migrants abusing the asylum process. She declares direct provision to be an appalling thing – “children born into direct provision” – how emotive.
@John R: Everyone in DP for any length of time has received multiple negative decisions. Multiple. Nobody is obliged to enter DP. It’s an option if you can’t afford housing. Everyone in DP gets a warm bed, an allowance, food, education, a medical card etc.
This is just another in a line of wish washy articles, high on emotion and short on facts. It’s the type of article that makes the author feel good about herself. But she evinces no concern for how her recommendations would impact on everyone else, especially those legally resident in Ireland. The only things the author’s recommendations would achieve are a massive increase in the numbers seeking asylum and a massive increase in homelessness amongst asylum seekers. Of course, this would be someone else’s fault as well.
@John R: https://i.redd.it/8xwherm6o7ay.gif
We have no idea how many are being brought into the country. As long as people like Catherine Zapone are popping off to Calais to bring over 25 year old male ‘children’ this PC rubbish will go on.
We are not responsible for the awful situations in other countries, problems of their own making, warring tribal factions who’ve been killing each other for centuries. White middle class guilt underpins this haughty patronising article.
Ordinary working people are waking up and rejecting this dangerous agenda.
This whole process is wrong. Apply if legitimate give all the help required to settle in and get in their feet. If not allow one appeal and if still refused deport back to where they came from. The current system is just a money making machine for those involved in housing and the legal help for these people.
Nobody should take more than one month to process.
Sorcha, that was terrible. Lots of wishes in there but very little by way of understanding the complexities of implementation and the impacts of those ‘wishes’. Open border nonsense. Any immigration or asylum system needs to be strict, affordable, manageable.
Because they are asylum seekers which is defined as such. How will we be able to identify those fleeing persecution versus those who are economic migrants. Another ridiculous left wing article.
‘grey rain sodden isle of ours’, sorry but that’s not how I see my country.
Any person who get his passport and visa and does everything legally in order to work in a foreign country is only a fool
Just sneak in, claim asylum, and the do gooders will look after you.
We got a mention in one of the Open Borders leaflets distributed to migrants as a place not to head to because of DP. That’s says it all. Drop it and we have a real problem. The author is completely naive. She should take a trip to Paris or Calais,
@Patrick J. O’Rourke: The author has taken a trip to Calais and has seen for herself what the refugee situation was like there. What exactly have you done, besides criticise BTW???
@Sorcha Grisewood: So the author has been to Calais and seen for herself the refugee situation and wants us to just accept those people here? is she out of her mind. Anybody can go to you tube see for themselves the true situation in Calais and the horrible lives the people of Calais have to live because of these migrants. I have seen documentaries on the migrants in Calais, they behave like savages, and treat people who try to help them appallingly, they have this attitude of entitlement and absolutely no gratitude for the french who sustain them or people of Calais who try to help them. Lorry drivers are terrified of them, several of them have been dragged out of their lorries and attacked by migrants, and that nutter wants to bring that here.
It is time the legal system got tough with asylum seekers/ economic migrants or people will react in the future like Brexit.
Why not send them home.
It’s worrying that people with such dangerous and foolish philosophies are permitted to vote, let alone teach! She’s basically arguing in favour of complete open-borders, no screening process whatsoever, imagine the ruinous effect this would have on our society. People with such views ought to spend some time in a psychiatric hospital.
Reddit frequently do Ask me Anything sessions AMAs. Would you like to see a Journal version where u can put your questions to an asylum applicant or one of those that promote a more lax immigration system?
A refugee is someone who needs temporary refuge, so at some stage they need to go back.
Lots of feelings over substance in this article, however we do need to do something with the immigration process. I think a streamlined system will be faster and if we remove the countless appeals we can ensure folk down stay in direct provision for too long.
this is mental. these are typically not skilled workers. they will go straight onto the labour, they will load more stress onto Social Services, dole payments, social housing.
anyone entering the country illegally should not be allowed to work. they’re not allowed to work in Germany so why should we?
@John Weldon: so the human rights lobbies would have everyone believe. along with the mantra that they’re getting the sh*te knocked outta them all the way to the airpot
90% of asylum seekers have been proven to be bogus. This is not counting the 30 year olds masquerading as “children”.
Flooding Europe with African illegal immigrants could be seen as a capitalist strategy to drive down labour costs as the people who suffer are the so called “working class” as pay and conditions nose drive.
Remember the people coming in are not doctors and engineers but unskilled workers and who are going to take their jobs.
What does the left do, they promote and encourage this, neglecting the interests of the people they are supposed to represent.
Remember the “Dublin agreement” I think it was called. Whatever happened to that?
@Hugh Legat: How many unskilled workers did we export to the US over the past centuries?
@Jim Kirby: There is no equation with Irish people emigrating to American and what is happening in Ireland. Irish people are not given housing, weekly allowances and every other kind of help that migrants are getting here.Furthermore they are not given priority over the natives of their host countries.
@Jim Kirby: The two are not compatible, a different time and a different world now.
If they are allowed to work, what are the odds that you won’t see too many getting jobs as teachers or indeed any PS job
Don’t they pay taxes when they buy stuff in the shop??
most asylum seekers are genuine but certainly not all. how do we decide who works? we would open the flood gates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKXRj5fhEQA
@Ireland Just shoot me: most aren’t genuine. Historically 94% are found to be bogus.
@Ireland Just shoot me: that’s just nonsense the largest group in Irish dp are Pakistani, followed by Nigerians. They clog up the system for actual asylum seekers with multiple appeals and should be removed
@johnp: Well said. Followed by Albanians you might add. In fact the top three nationalities in the Irish asylum process overwhelmingly fail the process across the entire of the EU. The fact that we treat their claims in the same fashion as claimants from counties that have higher success rates is a disgrace. It is a massive waste of resources and disadvantages bone fide asylum applicants. But, amazingly, those who so strongly declaim the current system see nothing wrong with this. It’s willful blindness.
They just love cheap labour, thats why.
What the Author is not taking into account is the age profile of the Asylum seekers in most instances in Calais.
They are mostly between the ages of 16/35, the right age for Military service and they have many years to go before they would get too old to be of use to their military agenda, that is one aspect and the other is the situation that would occur after some time, when their extended Families would arrive.
This could end up being any number of dependents, who would not be in a position to contribute to the wealth of Ireland in any way and they would have to be maintained by the Irish State for the rest of their lives and this would bring in many thousands more into a very fragile country with many of the same issues that these people present with, poverty.
In Germany that is what the bankers and businesses want because for them they can then drive down wages and have longer worker hours. A minimum wage is suppose to be legal now but they will use loop holes to get around that knowing the German government?
it’s obvious that unregulated working in chippies , garages would become a nightmare for revenue and in cases of litigation , if we let our country be dictated by trauma god help us and our children, the country is gone down the tubes as is, papering over the cracks won’t last forever, respect for our passports has diminished across the western world, so our children won’t have the option of immigration anymore very soon,
When will we learn to cop ourselves on–the Supreme Court decision was inevitable.
Think of the many many thousands of Irish who sought asylum in the US over the years–were they denied the right to work?
We have short memories.
Wonder how much has been spent on direct provision. on lawyers fees and Court fees to deal with our emigrant problem and how effective has it been?
We should get over this nonsense and take urgent steps to implement the findinds of the Court–Christian charity demands no less.
@Jim Kirby: How about showing some Christian charity to the countless Irish homeless people, do you not equate the mass influx of migrants to Ireland and our native Irish homeless? When does it stop, do we keep on going until the Irish are outnumbered by migrants, is this your aim? There is no equation between the Irish emigrating to the US, which is a country of 323 million, a huge country, Ireland is a country of around 5 million, a tiny island. The Irish are not given houses or social welfare in US, or are not treated better than the natives of their host countries, there is no equation, stop trying to say otherwise.
Every word makes sense but let’s look at this from the perspective of geography as you mentioned. The world needs to stop focusing on differences- colour, race, et., etc. – and focus on the carrying capacity of the land. If you had a 4-bed house, 2 people in it would be a luxury, 4-6 people would be right but 20 people would be untenable. The same applies to countries. Immigration must be managed only on this basis to avoid the problems that parts of the UK and elsewhere have faced due to uncontrolled and badly managed migration and resource management. I say this as a long long ago migrant myself although we got nothing free, and yet I’m proud to say have made huge contributions to our lovely adopted home.
Every word makes sense but look at this from the perspective of geography as you mentioned. The world must stop focusing on differences – colour, race, etc., etc. – and focus on the carrying capacity of the land. If you had a 4-bed house, 2 people in it would be a luxury, 4-6 people would be right but 20 people would be untenable. The same applies to countries. Immigration must be managed only on this basis to avoid the problems that parts of the UK and elsewhere have faced due to uncontrolled and badly managed migration and resource management. I say this as a long long ago migrant myself although we got nothing free, and yet I’m proud to say have made huge contributions to our lovely adopted home.
have your say