Asylum seekers waiting 10 years for decision

Systemic Risk

I just read an article in the galway independent about asylum seekers having to wait up to 10-11 years in direct provision centres for a decision on their status. Families live in a single hotel room together, have meals brought to them and get an allowance of 19.60 per adult p/w and 9.60 per child. They are not allowed work, store food in their rooms or cook.

There are 10 year old children in these centres who have never experienced having a home. They barely know what a kitchen is. Imagine that some of these children having been born and completed their primary education in ireland could be kicked out of the country. Many of the parents are suffering from depression and are humiliated at their situation.

I understand the necessity of these direct provision centres and expect the immigration service to screen out all false asylum seekers but this should be possible over a much shorter timeframe. I think it violates the rights of the assylum seekers to keep them waiting so long without the right to work or to a home.

What are your thoughts on the treatment of assylum seekers in ireland? Should we ensure applications are assessed quickly with a decision taking no more than a year or two including any appeals? Should they just be happy we took them in at all and are providing for them?

Uriel.

Simple solution. Immigration Control (or whoever processes applications) should just bulk buy "REJECTED" stamps and speed up the process.

Deise Vu

This is an absolutely deplorable situation unfortunately typical of Irish political decision making: There's no solution that will please both leftwing and right wing headbangers so do nothing, hope it goes away and becomes someone else's problem.

It is clear that there is abuse of the asylum system by asylum seekers (that Nigerian lady with the fictinal FMG'd child, people from non-EU European countries, people who lie about their origins etc.) and also people in genuine need (Kosovan Albanians being a fairly good example).

It shouldn't be a difficult task to ascertain where people are from, decide whether or not that country is oppressing them and allow them to stay or deport them within 3 months. If someone does not have documentation and cannot verify their origin I would just lock them up. If we don't know who or what you are why should we offer them a passport and become responsible for looking after them and their families?

I have no doubt I will attract abuse for this but I feel the Australians have this right. Originally they locked up everyone until they were proven OK. Now they are exporting the problem to Papua New Guinea as a cheaper alternative. Extremely cynical but cost-effective. In their favour, if an asylum seeker is genuinely fleeing oppression, surely he is only concerned about his and his family's safety? In my opinion that is the only thing with which a host country need be concerned. Most countries cannot even look after their own, let alone other countries problems. You can't have an open door policy so the fairest thing is to deal with applications as fast as possible, and don't leave yourself open to abuse.

Hammer Archer

I actually worked in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for a few months a couple of years ago. In general, decisions are made in asylum seekers' cases in 6 months or so. After that there were usually countless appeals and applications for judicial reviews which greatly prolonged the process.
Also, when women first presented themselves at ORAC they were told to notify the office should they become pregnant. A common tactic was to go through the appeals process and when that failed, show up at ORAC with their child in the days leading up to their deportation to apply for asylum on their behalf. This would mean their deportation would be cancelled and the process would start all over again.
Many asylum seekers did this with several children. I know of one case where a woman actually was on Primetime complaining about the length of time it was taking when it was entirely her fault.

As far as I can see, asylum seekers are treated fairly decently here, especially compared to other countries. They get guaranteed food, accommodation and just under €20 a week for the duration of their case(s) no matter how trivial their application is (in one case, someone had been working illegally for years yet only applied for asylum when they lost their job and couldn't pay their rent). Meanwhile, if you're an Irish or EU citizen and you fall on hard times, then tough luck.

shruikan2553

How do we even get asylum seekers? Unless they are from iceland, france or the UK they would of had to go passed another EU country. If they are coming to ireland just because it is easier to get in they should be sent back or to the first EU country they would have come across.

Shenshen

shruikan2553 wrote: »

How do we even get asylum seekers? Unless they are from iceland, france or the UK they would of had to go passed another EU country. If they are coming to ireland just because it is easier to get in they should be sent back or to the first EU country they would have come across.

Last time I checked, Ireland did have airports, several of them actually, with direct flights coming in from a variety of countries, not just Iceland, France and the UK.

Why does everybody seem to imagine people looking for asylum come to Ireland on foot or swim across?

AlekSmart

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I actually worked in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for a few months a couple of years ago. In general, decisions are made in asylum seekers' cases in 6 months or so. After that there were usually countless appeals and applications for judicial reviews which greatly prolonged the process.
Also, when women first presented themselves at ORAC they were told to notify the office should they become pregnant. A common tactic was to go through the appeals process and when that failed, show up at ORAC with their child in the days leading up to their deportation to apply for asylum on their behalf. This would mean their deportation would be cancelled and the process would start all over again.
Many asylum seekers did this with several children. I know of one case where a woman actually was on Primetime complaining about the length of time it was taking when it was entirely her fault.

As far as I can see, asylum seekers are treated fairly decently here, especially compared to other countries. They get guaranteed food, accommodation and just under €20 a week for the duration of their case(s) no matter how trivial their application is (in one case, someone had been working illegally for years yet only applied for asylum when they lost their job and couldn't pay their rent). Meanwhile, if you're an Irish or EU citizen and you fall on hard times, then tough luck.

Ah but,Hammer Archer,nobody wants to hear this side of the arguement,as it fails to satisfy the need to do-down Irelands asylum system and those who administer it.

A VERY significant cohort of people,with constant and vocal media based support made strenuous efforts to portray Ireland as some form of oppressive regime akin to Stalinist Russia in relation to the Asylum "Industry".

I rather suspect that 6 months in the ORAC Office rather broadened your understanding of the thing...?

There is a great deal of misinformation on the issue,particularly on exactly how the requirements of the Dublin Convention are administered.

Suffice to say,that Irelands Asylum process remains one of the fairest and most transparent in the World,but is hugely restricted in it's ability to respond to truly deserving cases by a systematic and well rehearsed mechanism designed to frustrate it at every attempt.

It does'nt matter to these scammers,that a genuinely oppressed and threatened individual/family may be denied the protection of Asylum,as long as they themselves get their feet in the door.

Right now,Ireland needs a far more robust review of it's current largely contrived "Backlog" with a view to repatriating most of the vexatious applicants back to their home countries/country of origin.

I'd also like to give a loud Thank You and Well Done to the Staff of ORAC and the Garda NBI,the vast majority of whom perform a difficult and often stressful job under less than optimal conditions...and yet remain the butt of media attacks when they have to do their duty.

Cody Pomeray

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I actually worked in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for a few months a couple of years ago. In general, decisions are made in asylum seekers' cases in 6 months or so. After that there were usually countless appeals and applications for judicial reviews which greatly prolonged the process.

The RAT are the most judicially reviewed state agency in this country. Their record is extraordinary.

The reason the RAT is so heavily subject to judicial review - and the reason why so many successful judicial reviews are taken is, sorry - largely a product of incompetence.

When cases go back before the RAT after a judicial review quashes one of their decision, it is not unheard of for the subsequent p RAT decision, which has now gone back to the RAT, to make *exactly* the same mistake and go back before the High Court, who again quash it.

This is an agency completely out on its own.

delthedriver

If the asylum seekers cannot meet the acceptance standards within 12 months of applying they should be returned home. It is wrong to give them false hope by accommodating them for 10 years.

I would love to know if any Irish person has ever applied for asylum or a work permit in the countries from which our asylum seekers have come from. What kind of reception would the Irish National bee greeted with?:)

vitani

Kevin Brophy, a solicitor, put up an interesting blog post recently:

http://brophysolicitorsfamilylaw.blogspot.ie/2013/07/edward-snowden-welcome-to-ireland.html

For many years in Ireland, we had a government appointed official who rejected every single claim for asylum that came before him. There was a deluge of complaints about him but nothing happened until one brave asylum seeker took a case against the Department and was on the verge of obtaining embarrassing Discovery documentation when our brave government conceded the case so as not to have to reveal these incriminating and hugelt embarrassing documents.

In March 2006, seven solicitors working in the area of refugee law swore affidavits stating that this man had never been known to decide a case in favour of an asylum seeker...

Personally, I think direct provision is an absolute disgrace and it shames us as a country. When you try to say this though, most people respond with one of the following:

1) If they don't like it, go home.
2) There's brand new cars outside the centres.
3) They shouldn't be here in the first place. There's no direct flights from Africa to Ireland.
4) Our welfare system is too generous.

All of which ignore the fact that these people are here and the conditions they have to live under are appalling. There's young children who've never known any other way of living, who don't even understand what a kitchen is. These kids are only going to get one childhood and it's being thrown away while the appeals are dragged out for years on end.

Direct provision also costs us money as a State. It's inefficient and was never designed as a long-term solution. Unfortunately, that's what it's become.

jugger0

Reject all of them and look after our own people first, plenty of people living rough in our own country.

Amirani

jugger0 wrote: »

Reject all of them and look after our own people first, plenty of people living rough in our own country.

None of your family emigrated to the US/UK during the famine/economic troubles in the 70s then I presume?

AlekSmart

NiallSparky wrote: »

None of your family emigrated to the US/UK during the famine/economic troubles in the 70s then I presume?

Emigrated to,or sought Asylum in ...?

apollo8

jugger0 wrote: »

Reject all of them and look after our own people first, plenty of people living rough in our own country.

This coming from someone who lives in a country whos main export is and always was people.

Amirani

AlekSmart wrote: »

Emigrated to,or sought Asylum in ...?

Either.

NoCrackHaving

jugger0 wrote: »

Reject all of them and look after our own people first, plenty of people living rough in our own country.

Jesus, sending people back to be raped/persecuted/killed? While there are some frauds (I have no idea how many), some asylum seekers are genuine. Sending a Muslim or Croat back to Bosnia during its wars would be horrific.

Now saying that, I agree that it should be only the first EU country you land in that you can apply for refuge. However if that happens to be Ireland and it's genuine I think most would agree on letting them stay.

Friend Computer

delthedriver wrote: »

If the asylum seekers cannot meet the acceptance standards within 12 months of applying they should be returned home. It is wrong to give them false hope by accommodating them for 10 years.

I would love to know if any Irish person has ever applied for asylum or a work permit in the countries from which our asylum seekers have come from. What kind of reception would the Irish National bee greeted with?:)

Asylum from what, exactly?

Rented Mule

Systemic Risk wrote: »

I just read an article in the galway independent about asylum seekers having to wait up to 10-11 years in direct provision centres for a decision on their status.

Wait until they try to get a driving license.

Chucky the tree

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I actually worked in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for a few months a couple of years ago. In general, decisions are made in asylum seekers' cases in 6 months or so. After that there were usually countless appeals and applications for judicial reviews which greatly prolonged the process.
Also, when women first presented themselves at ORAC they were told to notify the office should they become pregnant. A common tactic was to go through the appeals process and when that failed, show up at ORAC with their child in the days leading up to their deportation to apply for asylum on their behalf. This would mean their deportation would be cancelled and the process would start all over again.
Many asylum seekers did this with several children. I know of one case where a woman actually was on Primetime complaining about the length of time it was taking when it was entirely her fault.

As far as I can see, asylum seekers are treated fairly decently here, especially compared to other countries. They get guaranteed food, accommodation and just under €20 a week for the duration of their case(s) no matter how trivial their application is (in one case, someone had been working illegally for years yet only applied for asylum when they lost their job and couldn't pay their rent). Meanwhile, if you're an Irish or EU citizen and you fall on hard times, then tough luck.

Hardly a case of tough luck with your minimum €188 per week.

NoCrackHaving

AlekSmart wrote: »

Emigrated to,or sought Asylum in ...?

To be honest due to Ireland's unique history very few if any Irish people have ever needed to 'seek asylum' due to the fact that easy open emigration to the UK/US/Canada etc. has always been open to us in a way it isn't for many countries.

Hilly Bill

If they dont accept the immigration decision and then intentionally delay the process then ive no sympathy for them. Would they rather remain in the country for 10 years or be deported within a few months? 10 years is a stupid amount of time to be processed , they shouldnt even be allowed out the airport until they can prove that they are in danger.
There are a good number living on our streets who would love to be put up in a room with meals handed out to them every day.

hfallada

When you think of Asylum seekers you think of people from war torn countries that could be killed from a bomb or a bullet at any moment. But yet you hear them give out about the conditions they are living in and they receive so little from the state. You would imagine they would be grateful to be safe. I think some asylum seekers come here to chance getting a job rather than ensuring they dont die.

General General

Easy to improve the situation for Asylum Seekers, provide an opt-in 'extra tax' option so that people who think that conditions are appalling can put their money where their mouth is. Clearly, those who don't tick that 'extra tax' box don't want to increase their tax burden so that better (even better?) provision is made for Asylum Seekers &, I presume, that is their right, after all.

I think a whole lot of 'moaning' about many different expenditures could be similarly reduced with this kind of 'opt in', tick an 'extra tax' box kind of system.

General General

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Hardly a case of tough luck with your minimum €188 per week.

Good luck getting that if you were self employed & your business went tits up.

Guyanachronism

Direct provision system isn't perfect, I think they should take over some ghost estate somewhere and establish a more community style direct provision method, but a large part of the delays is attempts to frustrate the process and waiting for appeals to be heard. I think a special appeals court where cases are heard 48 hours after they're lodged. They have a similiar system in France. Also the offer of assisted voluntary return for people who have been in the system for two years or more.

We can improve the standards in direct provision, but I don't see an alternative, giving them work permits, even if only they have been here for a number of years like Common European Asylum System proposal, creates another pull factor.

Over 90% of asylum claims are rejected but many get to remain in the country by marrying someone who has legal residency, leave to remain granted by the minister or illegally.

Hilly Bill

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Direct provision system isn't perfect, I think they should take over some ghost estate somewhere and establish a more community style direct provision method, but a large part of the delays is attempts to frustrate the process and waiting for appeals to be heard. I think a special appeals court where cases are heard 48 hours after they're lodged. They have a similiar system in France. Also the offer of assisted voluntary return for people who have been in the system for two years or more.

We can improve the standards in direct provision, but I don't see an alternative, giving them work permits, even if only they have been here for a number of years like Common European Asylum System proposal, creates another pull factor.

Over 90% of asylum claims are rejected but many get to remain in the country by marrying someone who has legal residency, leave to remain granted by the minister or illegally.

They have, its called Ballbriggan.

jugger0

NiallSparky wrote: »

None of your family emigrated to the US/UK during the famine/economic troubles in the 70s then I presume?

We didn't give them asylum seekers we gave them a workforce.

General General

jugger0 wrote: »

We didn't give them asylum seekers we gave them a workforce.

I completely agree. Skid row or worse, if you didn't work (hard) over there (often for s.f.a.).

& yes, for those who counter, you could work. Illegally.

No room & board + pocket money for you in the USA, though, so you'd kind of have to work.

jugger0

apollo8 wrote: »

This coming from someone who lives in a country whos main export is and always was people.

Indeed and we gave our host countries manpower for their workforce or cannon fodder for their wars, asylum seekers give us nothing and in these tough times would it not make more sense to look after our own?

vitani

jugger0 wrote: »

Indeed and we gave our host countries manpower for their workforce or cannon fodder for their wars, asylum seekers give us nothing and in these tough times would it not make more sense to look after our own?

We don't allow them to work. That's our decision, not theirs.

And it doesn't have to be an either/or. Direct Provision is expensive. If a new more efficient system was put in place, the money saved could go on 'our own'.

Guyanachronism

Hilly Bill wrote: »

They have, its called Ballbriggan.

I am not familiar with it, but from googling it seems more like social dumping than a thought out plan to ensure minimum standards.

Amirani

jugger0 wrote: »

We didn't give them asylum seekers we gave them a workforce.

Since when do people granted asylum in Ireland not form part of the workforce?

Shenshen

delthedriver wrote: »

I would love to know if any Irish person has ever applied for asylum or a work permit in the countries from which our asylum seekers have come from. What kind of reception would the Irish National bee greeted with?:)

I don't know... places like Ecuador and Russia seem to be chuffed to bits every time a Westerner applies to them for asylum.

apollo8

jugger0 wrote: »

Indeed and we gave our host countries manpower for their workforce or cannon fodder for their wars, asylum seekers give us nothing and in these tough times would it not make more sense to look after our own?

How can they give us anything when they are not allowed to work?.
Our emigrants could and did work,you try hard to cover it up but i believe your views are based on racism.

AlekSmart

vitani wrote: »

Kevin Brophy, a solicitor, put up an interesting blog post recently:

http://brophysolicitorsfamilylaw.blogspot.ie/2013/07/edward-snowden-welcome-to-ireland.html

Personally, I think direct provision is an absolute disgrace and it shames us as a country. When you try to say this though, most people respond with one of the following:

1) If they don't like it, go home.
2) There's brand new cars outside the centres.
3) They shouldn't be here in the first place. There's no direct flights from Africa to Ireland.
4) Our welfare system is too generous.


All of which ignore the fact that these people are here and the conditions they have to live under are appalling. There's young children who've never known any other way of living, who don't even understand what a kitchen is. These kids are only going to get one childhood and it's being thrown away while the appeals are dragged out for years on end.

Direct provision also costs us money as a State. It's inefficient and was never designed as a long-term solution. Unfortunately, that's what it's become.

Vitani,can we assume,from the Kevin Brophy link,that you have an interest or involvement in this area ?

Your 4 points,outlining what "Most People" respond with,may indeed be indicative of a simplistic response,but that does not invalidate them.

Given that many of the Applicants for Asylum are supposedly in fleeing oppression and direct life threatening situations,I would be loath to describe the Irish State's Direct Provision response as anything other than humaniterian and proportionate to both the Country's ability to provide,and also the actual needs of the applicants.

Whilst Kevin Brophy's opinion and that of the other 7 "Solicitors workin in the area of refugee law" are of course valid,their close involvement in the same system does tend to require a bit of filtering when considering those opinions.

Other no less interested parties,not directly involved in the "Asylum" process may be entitled to hold a somewhat differing opinion ?

Personally,I believe Irelands Direct Provision System,whilst far from perfect,is as good and wide-ranging a system as we can offer in our current financial and social situation.

It most assuredly does not "Shame Ireland as a Country",and to suggest that is quite disparaging to those who administer and work within the DP systems

The issues surrounding Asylum seeking,and it's worldwide "Industry" Status,brought to the fore in the Boom Times,did catch Ireland on the hop.

We were simply unprepared for the reality that Ireland as a country,had become a "Mark" for those individuals and groups who operate 24/7/365 in the Asylum business.

We could'nt get our administrative heads around a situation whereby,a chancer rocking-up to our door with a cock-and-bull story needed to be firmly but fairly turned 180 and sent on their way,complete with Dick Whittington pole and satchel.

There were/are reasons,other than mere chance,that people from far flung countries managed to find themselves on Irelands doorstep.

Very few of these reasons were down to the panic of having to suddenly flee the soldiers of an oppressive regime or a Political Opponent swinging a Panga outside your front-door.

A significant number of the Asylum applicants,made and paid for "professional" advice in their home-countries,many of which,such as Nigeria,enjoy full diplomatic and social relations with Ireland.

Dare I suggest that such "Professional Advice",most likely,came from foreign based interested parties,most likely akin to our own home based ones.

I'm afraid Vitani,I differ in opinion on the issue,I believe Ireland is operating a fit-for-purpose system,adhering to the principles of Asylum as closely as it can,however as has been shown so many times,it simply buckled and collapsed under the weight of opportunistic systemic scamming.

My name is URL

delthedriver wrote: »

If the asylum seekers cannot meet the acceptance standards within 12 months of applying they should be returned home. It is wrong to give them false hope by accommodating them for 10 years.

I would love to know if any Irish person has ever applied for asylum or a work permit in the countries from which our asylum seekers have come from. What kind of reception would the Irish National bee greeted with?:)

"meet the acceptance standards"

You haven't a clue what you're on about tbh. The fact that such delays exist isn't the fault of asylum seekers. It'd be a bit unfair to boot people out because of inadequacies in how the state goes about dealing with asylum claims.

As for your second paragraph, what does that have to do with anything? If Irish people were treated badly in a country, should it be okay for us to treat others badly?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Hilly Bill wrote: »

They have, its called Ballbriggan.

Inane answer.
I live in Balbriggan, its as good as anywhere else to live, not sure what kind of inane/stupid point you're trying to make.
Then again since you cant even spell it properly its safe to assume that you have no idea what you're on about:P

vitani

AlekSmart wrote: »

Vitani,can we assume,from the Kevin Brophy link,that you have an interest or involvement in this area ?

Your 4 points,outlining what "Most People" respond with,may indeed be indicative of a simplistic response,but that does not invalidate them.

Given that many of the Applicants for Asylum are supposedly in fleeing oppression and direct life threatening situations,I would be loath to describe the Irish State's Direct Provision response as anything other than humaniterian and proportionate to both the Country's ability to provide,and also the actual needs of the applicants.

Whilst Kevin Brophy's opinion and that of the other 7 "Solicitors workin in the area of refugee law" are of course valid,their close involvement in the same system does tend to require a bit of filtering when considering those opinions.

Other no less interested parties,not directly involved in the "Asylum" process may be entitled to hold a somewhat differing opinion ?

Personally,I believe Irelands Direct Provision System,whilst far from perfect,is as good and wide-ranging a system as we can offer in our current financial and social situation.

It most assuredly does not "Shame Ireland as a Country",and to suggest that is quite dispariging to those who administer and work within the DP systems

The issues surrounding Asylum seeking,and it's worldwide "Industry" Status,brought to the fore in the Boom Times,did catch Ireland on the hop.

We were simply unprepared for the reality that Ireland as a country,had become a "Mark" for those individuals and groups who operate 24/7/365 in the Asylum business.

We could'nt get our administrative heads around a situation whereby,a chancer rocking-up to our door with a cock-and-bull story needed to be firmly but fairly turned 180 and sent on their way,complete with Dick Whittington pole and satchel.

There were/are reasons,other than mere chance,that people from far flung countries managed to find themselves on Irelands doorstep.

Very few of these reasons were down to the panic of having to suddenly flee the soldiers of an oppressive regime or a Political Opponent swinging a Panga outside your front-door.

A significant number of the Asylum applicants,made and paid for "professional" advice in their home-countries,many of which,such as Nigeria,enjoy full diplomatic and social relations with Ireland.

Dare I suggest that such "Professional Advice",most likely,came from foreign based interested parties,most likely akin to our own home based ones.

I'm afraid Vitani,I differ in opinion on the issue,I believe Ireland is operating a fit-for-purpose system,adhering to the principles of Asylum as closely as it can,however as has been shown so many times,it simply buckled and collapsed under the weight of opportunistic systemic scamming.

No, we can't. I found that link one of the last times the topic came up here and it stuck in my memory.

I've no personal involvement in the area. A former lecturer of mine is quite involved in the campaign to end direct provision so it's something I've read up on, but I've no 'interest' in it, as such. I'm just a bleeding heart leftie, I suppose.

The issue, for me, is simply the way that asylum seekers are treated. I've no interest in discussing whether their claims are valid or whether they're scammers or opportunists, because I don't believe that makes their treatment acceptable. I believe there is a fairer way of assessing and administering claims for asylum, and accomodating asylum seekers while they wait for a decision, and that Direct Provision is not it.

Guyanachronism

vitani wrote: »

No, we can't. I found that link one of the last times the topic came up here and it stuck in my memory.

I've no personal involvement in the area. A former lecturer of mine is quite involved in the campaign to end direct provision so it's something I've read up on, but I've no 'interest' in it, as such. I'm just a bleeding heart leftie, I suppose.

The issue, for me, is simply the way that asylum seekers are treated. I've no interest in discussing whether their claims are valid or whether they're scammers or opportunists, because I don't believe that makes their treatment acceptable. I believe there is a fairer way of assessing and administering claims for asylum, and accomodating asylum seekers while they wait for a decision, and that Direct Provision is not it.

What is the fairer way? I hear the campaigns against direct provision, I agree with the arguments against direct provision but I never hear of the alternative.

Hilly Bill

Old and grey wrote: »

Inane answer.
I live in Balbriggan, its as good as anywhere else to live, not sure what kind of inane/stupid point you're trying to make.
Then again since you cant even spell it properly its safe to assume that you have no idea what you're on about:P

Calm down , i didnt say anything about the quality of the town. I added an extra L, big deal.

AlekSmart

Systemic Risk wrote: »

.

What are your thoughts on the treatment of assylum seekers in ireland? Should we ensure applications are assessed quickly with a decision taking no more than a year or two including any appeals? Should they just be happy we took them in at all and are providing for them?

A major part of the problem,and the largest single flaw in Systemic Risk's Two-Year decision time-frame is the ability of the vexatious Asylum Seeker to prolong the appeals process indefinitely.

Now,ALL of this has to be carried out with the active assistance,or dare I say it,connivance of the Legal Proffesion,a sizeable number of whom have grown into substantial stand-alone practices in this new growth area.

Lets be honest here,and admit that given it's ability to operate,our current Asylum System is more than capable of delivering it's adjudications within a reasonable time frame.

However,accepting such decisions does not appear to ever be on the agenda of those Legal Advisors acting against the State.

Stuff like this,for example does tend to offer,perhaps an insight into the thought processes involved ....

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/09da71281f988b10802578cb003b9192?OpenDocument

So,yes a number of the applicants Systemic Risk refers to,should indeed be happy (and grateful) that Ireland took them in and continues to provide for them....however I see little indication of such an attitude thus far ?

Cody Pomeray

vitani wrote: »

I've no personal involvement in the area. A former lecturer of mine is quite involved in the campaign to end direct provision

I presume you're a UCD student?!

vitani wrote: »

The issue, for me, is simply the way that asylum seekers are treated. I've no interest in discussing whether their claims are valid or whether they're scammers or opportunists, because I don't believe that makes their treatment acceptable. I believe there is a fairer way of assessing and administering claims for asylum, and accomodating asylum seekers while they wait for a decision, and that Direct Provision is not it.

Well exactly. This is a question of fairness.

The surprising thing about direct provision is that for something which can so seriously aggravate asylum seekers' destitution, and offend their human dignity, it is not actually something defined by law. It is set down in Department of Social Protection circulars and deliberated on in internal memos... what way is that to deal with so fundamental a question as access to basic services and the ability to live with some level of human dignity?

On the other hand, we have no problem passing laws to enforce automatic rejections of applications for rent supplement by asylum seekers.

We go further. We do not sign up to the EU's Reception Conditions Directive, which would probably see us embarrassed in front of the European Court of Human Rights, that is if our own court system does not embarrass us further. And some would say, that with the amount of judicial reviews against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and new cases emerging all the time, that this is already happening.

It is now only a matter of time before direct provision is subject to legal action.

Capt'n Midnight

The world was a very different place 10 years ago.

Many places have improved and lots of regimes have changed so the original grounds for seeking asylum would have changed in most cases ?

AlekSmart

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I presume you're a UCD student?!

Well exactly. This is a question of fairness.

The surprising thing about direct provision is that for something which can so seriously aggravate asylum seekers' destitution, and offend their human dignity, it is not actually something defined by law. It is set down in Department of Social Protection circulars and deliberated on in internal memos... what way is that to deal with so fundamental a question as access to basic services and the ability to live with some level of human dignity?

On the other hand, we have no problem passing laws to enforce automatic rejections of applications for rent supplement by asylum seekers.

We go further. We do not sign up to the EU's Reception Conditions Directive, which would probably see us embarrassed in front of the European Court of Human Rights, that is if our own court system does not embarrass us further. And some would say, that with the amount of judicial reviews against the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and new cases emerging all the time, that this is already happening.

It is now only a matter of time before direct provision is subject to legal action.

I would agree on the Legal Action,as the preparations are already well underway for such an action.

If Ireland had a U.S. style Class-Action process I would suggest the Legal Profession would already have mounted such a crusade.

However,yet again I would suggest that whilst some individuals may feel "Embarassment" at Irelands Asylum proceedures,I for one,feel nothing of the sort.

To sugggest that the Irish State,and by association,it's own Citizens,is conspiring to deny Asylum Seekers access to basic services or treating them with anything less than human dignity,is not sustainable.

Is the suggestion that Ireland,in some way wishes to wage a campaign against Asylum provision..?

Can those who deride Irelands attempts to cope with it's Asylum Seekers,provide any evidence that the State is mounting such a campaign ?

The main differenc in attitude appears to centre around those who focus on the narrower element of just how the Asylum System is operating,compared to those who wish to broaden the issue out into far large Socio/Economic questions of Countries opening their borders and allowing free access to all.

The fact that Ireland has a Refugee Appeals Tribunal at all,in addition to comprehensive access to it's highest Courts for those who seek it does not in the slightest point to something for any Irish Citizen to be ashamed of.

The ECHR can,at its discretion,consider and issue it's decisions and these deserve to be fully considered,but it far from embarrasses me that we as a State can still mount a counter arguement at that court.

What Ireland as a country can sustainably provide,vs what individuals would wish it to provide,can be poles apart.

The suggestion that all current applicants will suddenly turn into fully employed contributors into mainstream Irish Society,is I fear,a little hopeful.

delthedriver

My name is URL wrote: »

"meet the acceptance standards"

You haven't a clue what you're on about tbh. The fact that such delays exist isn't the fault of asylum seekers. It'd be a bit unfair to boot people out because of inadequacies in how the state goes about dealing with asylum claims.

As for your second paragraph, what does that have to do with anything? If Irish people were treated badly in a country, should it be okay for us to treat others badly?

We are a country in recession. Why are we spending money trying to placate people who don't belong here? Meanwhile long term cancer sufferers are having their medical cards withdrawn? Let us look after our own people first. Why are illegal aliens or asylum seeker so anxious to gain entry here in any case? Ireland has no history of having colonies. There are other EU countries for these people to seek asylum . It would be interesting to hear what SF views are on this?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

What must be blindingly obvious is that neither our asylum application process nor our appeals process are fit for purpose. Consequently the many who do not come near to meeting the criteria for asylum are clogging up the system and depriving the few who are entitled to asylum of a speedy decision.

My name is URL

delthedriver wrote: »

We are a country in recession. Why are we spending money trying to placate people who don't belong here?

Because international human rights laws dictate it?.. and also because it's the right thing to do. Ireland is no longer in a position where it can just shut up shop and pass the buck to other nations to deal with.

Meanwhile long term cancer sufferers are having their medical cards withdrawn? Let us look after our own people first. Why are illegal aliens or asylum seeker so anxious to gain entry here in any case? Ireland has no history of having colonies. There are other EU countries for these people to seek asylum . It would be interesting to hear what SF views are on this?

Do you honestly think 'our own' would be treated any better if we turned away asylum seekers?

SF, to the best of my knowledge are quite liberal in terms of immigration policies.

Cody Pomeray

AlekSmart wrote: »

whilst some individuals may feel "Embarassment" at Irelands Asylum proceedures,I for one,feel nothing of the sort.

By "embarrassment", I refer to the embarrassment of the state authorities, either in terms of a decision made against them in the European courts, or in terms of any criticism made of them in the courts. I'm not suggesting that Irish citizens would be individually embarrassed, although I suggest many would be, and are, disappointed in the authorities here, and that is much worse than mere embarrassment.

To sugggest that the Irish State,and by association,it's own Citizens,is conspiring to deny Asylum Seekers access to basic services or treating them with anything less than human dignity,is not sustainable.

Is the suggestion that Ireland,in some way wishes to wage a campaign against Asylum provision..?

Can those who deride Irelands attempts to cope with it's Asylum Seekers,provide any evidence that the State is mounting such a campaign ?

If Ireland is failing asylum seekers, it does not follow as a matter of necessity that there is "a campaign" being waged against them. Some shortcomings can be a result of ignorance of the law, or a misapprehension of the common good where there is no malice. In any event, I just don't see the relevance of some malicious intent; if asylum seekers are being mistreated, e.g. by not being provided with adequate means of subsistence, then that is sufficient (see M.S.S v Belgium and Greece, or see AN v. Minister for Justice).

By not setting direct provision on a statutory footing, and therefore by seeming to deny asylum seekers legal remedies, then that is one area where the state may be falling short in its treatment of asylum seekers.

Or the level of allowance provided these people, lawfully resident in this jurisdiction, may be deemed incompatible with one or more of the rights enshrined in the ECHR.

The fact that Ireland has a Refugee Appeals Tribunal at all,in addition to comprehensive access to it's highest Courts for those who seek it does not in the slightest point to something for any Irish Citizen to be ashamed of.

It's no good having a RAT if it isn't doing its job properly. The current situation with the amount of judicial reviews coming before the superior courts, and no subsequent corrective action by the RAT is unacceptable.

The suggestion that all current applicants will suddenly turn into fully employed contributors into mainstream Irish Society,is I fear,a little hopeful

Employed? Asylum seekers, lawful residents of the state, are legally obliged to be dependent... even when they have Irish born children.

delthedriver

My name is URL wrote: »

Because international human rights laws dictates it?.. and also because it's the right thing to do. Ireland is no longer in a position where it can just shut up shop and pass the buck to other nations to deal with.



Do you honestly think 'our own' would be treated any better if we turned away asylum seekers?

SF, to the best of my knowledge are quite liberal in terms of immigration policies.

How much is it costing the Taxpayer per year, to house, feed , clothe, and give the asylum seekers modest spending money.?

It is fine and well to be do gooders, however IMO, charity begins at home. A little realism should prevail.

Perhaps someone could explain how asylum seekers can afford to run , tax and insure a car let alone purchase the thing on such a measly weekly allowance.
Smell the coffee?

delthedriver

Another question if I may please? Has there been a noticeable drop in the numbers seeking asylum since Ireland went into recession?

Regarding International human rights, I find that somewhat laughable when Australia recently turned away Boat People . No messing there, won't take 10 years to process their applications!

What about the rights of our own citizens, should we continue to finance these long stay visitors?:)

delthedriver

Friend Computer wrote: »

Asylum from what, exactly?

Asylum if one is a Director of a failed Irish Bank. LOL:D

Apologies, I was being a little cheeky, but I Was simply trying to highlight the word asylum. What exactly are our refugees actually seeking asylum from. How genuine are their applications in the first place? Surely it can't take 10 years to process or deny entry to Ireland