Residents at Athlone asylum seekers centre refusing to eat

walshb

Gatling wrote: »

See that is illegal asylum seekers are not allowed to work ,

But if there missing meal times thats there own problem cant expect a 24hr restaurant

Absolutely...

smurfjed

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/european-union

Considering that HRW have found issues with just about every country in the world with the exception of IRELAND, does that therefore indicate that the Irish Governments policies on Refugees and Asylum seekers are considered fair?

jank

Ebola7 wrote: »

Food or its quality is not a real issue here. It can be all broken down to timing.
These centres provide meals at allocated times -breakfast, lunch dinner. After that staff leaves and that's it. This make it problematic to get food for residents who miss breakfast and lunch due to early shifts in their jobs and some will miss dinner when going to evening shift in take away and restaurants.
Yes, they do work. Mostly in asian restaurants and eateries, delivering leaflets and local papers in the mornings. I have talked to several of them, going rate is about 2-3 euro/hour. No wonder they are frustrated.
Problem is that there is simply no chance to close direct provision as it will be more costly approach. They cost taxpayer about 180 euro/week I cant see where government is going to get money to provide all of them with houses. Every asylum seeker who is granted refugee status is required to move out of direct provision. Then they have to rent accommodation and with current housing situation they have to rent - getting rent supplement where government practically pay for their accommodation on top of that weekly 180 euro. The second they are granted refugee status and come to their old job looking for more than just 2-3 euro they are kicked out of the door.
My opinion is that real culprit behind their grievances are not "greedy" direct provision centre owners but appeal process where legal professionals make killing launching appeal after another even that they know they will be rejected. That is the case of people waiting 5-10 years, they are aided by solicitors to refuse to leave even if their case do not met condition to grant refugee status.

So at least it is agreed that many of these people are acting illegally while waiting to get residency in the state.

Nodin

smurfjed wrote: »

Considering that HRW have found issues with just about every country in the world with the exception of IRELAND, does that therefore indicate that the Irish Governments policies on Refugees and Asylum seekers are considered fair?

That's the 2014 "summary". You'll find the state is mentioned on the main site
http://www.hrw.org/search/apachesolr_search/ireland?f[0]=im_taxonomy_vid_1%3A10&f[1]=im_taxonomy_vid_1%3A193

Ebola7

jank wrote: »

So at least it is agreed that many of these people are acting illegally while waiting to get residency in the state.

It is little bit complicated.
They are not allowed to get proper job, they cant be employed legally. So they look for work in places where nobody want to see work permit and this type of work is readily offered to them. People who employ them are actually those who commit crime.
Did you ever try to get job at asian take away or restaurant? Or get a job delivering leaflets and/or newspaper? You will be more lucky finding leprechaun than getting regular job there. That is because these places are taken by people willing to work for 2-3 euro/hour. No wonder as they already do have accommodation, food, medical, clothing needs provided and paid for. That 2-3 euro/hour is net profit. At the end of the day they may be better off than anybody else working for minimum wage 40 hours a week.

I would say that direct provision can be abolished, let them work... But truth is that most of those who talk about that they want to work want just continuation of what they do now. With just additional perk like own house/apartment paid for by government.

My opinion is that capping number of appeals to lets say one and having it sorted fast will resolve whole problem. Every asylum seeker case can be investigated and processed in 6 months with allowing another few months for appeal in case they really think that they do have ground to stand on. There is no point for anyone to wait more than a year. But that may be a problem to legal industry who do have a nice gravy train in "asylum industry".

Ebola7

jank wrote: »

So at least it is agreed that many of these people are acting illegally while waiting to get residency in the state.

It is little bit complicated.
They are not allowed to get proper job, they cant be employed legally. So they look for work in places where nobody want to see work permit and this type of work is readily offered to them. People who employ them are actually those who commit crime.
Did you ever try to get job at asian take away or restaurant? Or get a job delivering leaflets and/or newspaper? You will be more lucky finding leprechaun than getting regular job there. That is because these places are taken by people willing to work for 2-3 euro/hour. No wonder as they already do have accommodation, food, medical, clothing needs provided and paid for. That 2-3 euro/hour is net profit. At the end of the day they may be better off than anybody else working for minimum wage 40 hours a week.

I would say that direct provision can be abolished, let them work... But truth is that most of those who talk about that they want to work want just continuation of what they do now. With just additional perk like own house/apartment paid for by government.

My opinion is that capping number of appeals to lets say one and having it sorted fast will resolve whole problem. Every asylum seeker case can be investigated and processed in 6 months with allowing another few months for appeal in case they really think that they do have ground to stand on. There is no point for anyone to wait more than a year. But that may be a problem to many solicitors who do have a nice gravy train in "asylum industry" feeding on never ending appeals and prolonging individual cases as long as possible.

It is easy to get emotional for every bleeding heart out there when they see sad face in news telling to camera how he is waiting over 10 years for decision on his case. What is not told is that he is waiting for decision No(2,3,4...). They just were not what he expected so he appealed every time he get refused.

Nodin

Ebola7 wrote: »

It is little bit complicated.
They are not allowed to get proper job, they cant be employed legally. So they look for work in places where nobody want to see work permit and this type of work is readily offered to them. People who employ them are actually those who commit crime.
Did you ever try to get job at asian take away or restaurant? Or get a job delivering leaflets and/or newspaper? You will be more lucky finding leprechaun than getting regular job there. That is because these places are taken by people willing to work for 2-3 euro/hour. No wonder as they already do have accommodation, food, medical, clothing needs provided and paid for. That 2-3 euro/hour is net profit. At the end of the day they may be better off than anybody else working for minimum wage 40 hours a week.

I would say that direct provision can be abolished, let them work... But truth is that most of those who talk about that they want to work want just continuation of what they do now. With just additional perk like own house/apartment paid for by government.

My opinion is that capping number of appeals to lets say one and having it sorted fast will resolve whole problem. Every asylum seeker case can be investigated and processed in 6 months with allowing another few months for appeal in case they really think that they do have ground to stand on. There is no point for anyone to wait more than a year. But that may be a problem to many solicitors who do have a nice gravy train in "asylum industry" feeding on never ending appeals and prolonging individual cases as long as possible.

It is easy to get emotional for every bleeding heart out there when they see sad face in news telling to camera how he is waiting over 10 years for decision on his case. What is not told is that he is waiting for decision No(2,3,4...). They just were not what he expected so he appealed every time he get refused.

Generally Lawyers for the state get paid, lawyers working for asylum seekers work pro bono.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Generally Lawyers for the state get paid, lawyers working for asylum seekers work pro bono.

I would be interested in the details of this particular assertion.

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

I would be interested in the details of this particular assertion.

As ye will.

"By contrast with the barristers retained by the State, defence lawyers in asylum cases often work pro-bono, as asylum seekers very rarely receive any legal aid. If the defence lawyers don't win their cases, they don't get paid, according to legal sources. "
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/state-asylum-cases-earned-exministers-wife-1m-29908349.html

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

as asylum seekers very rarely receive any legal aid.

That's a big misrepresentation. Asylum seekers don't receive legal aid at the outset of their application, but it is very easy for them to satisfy the legal aid requirements subsequent to this, at appeal stage, and at Judicial Review stage where relevant.

In fact i just looked at that Indo article and it's got plenty of factual errors. For example, the claim that 50% of appeals are successful is simply untrue. No relevant professional or journalist could seriously stand over that figure.

Always amusing how people will rely on the Indo when it suits their argument, yet deride it when it disagrees with them.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

As ye will.

"By contrast with the barristers retained by the State, defence lawyers in asylum cases often work pro-bono, as asylum seekers very rarely receive any legal aid. If the defence lawyers don't win their cases, they don't get paid, according to legal sources. "
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/state-asylum-cases-earned-exministers-wife-1m-29908349.html

Ah right-oh Ted.....:)

Are we to take it then,that a substantial sector of the Irish Legal Profession spend a significant amount of their time working for nothing,whilst maintaining successful practices ?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ah right-oh Ted.....:)

Are we to take it then,that a substantial sector of the Irish Legal Profession spend a significant amount of their time working for nothing,whilst maintaining successful practices ?

Where did you get that notion?

Gatling

In a previous link one asylum seeker had 3x human rights barrister's who in turn likely had 2-3 solicitors each under them and legal secretary's thats a lot of people working for nothing essentially ,

If remembered right in a previous thread the legal aid bill for asylum seekers was around €6,000,000 for 2012 alone

AlekSmart

Gatling wrote: »

In a previous link one asylum seeker had 3x human rights barrister's who in turn likely had 2-3 solicitors each under them and legal secretary's thats a lot of people working for nothing essentially ,

If remembered right in a previous thread the legal aid bill for asylum seekers was around €6,000,000 for 2012 alone

AH I see.....

Nodin: Generally Lawyers for the state get paid, lawyers working for asylum seekers work pro bono.

.........but then,who is getting this money....?

reprise

AlekSmart wrote: »

AH I see.....



.........but then,who is getting this money....?

As you know, the legal profession are far from transparent in this area and less than forthcoming on the minutiae.

Whereas they claim they are not getting paid when they lose, it is worth noting that they are not really penalised either. Assuming costs are awarded against a client that simply absconds or is deported or claims inability to pay, the State pays for everything.

Lost in the detail is whether the solicitor/barrister can claim for any of their costs along the way e.g.. winning an injunction.

It would be a nice project for a journalist to investigate but when it comes to this particular issue, it is only ever assigned wide eyed reporters.

conorh91

reprise wrote: »

Whereas they claim they are not getting paid when they lose, it is worth noting that they are not really penalised either.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum—and that's really saying something. Can you really be suggesting that legal representatives, should their client's application be unsuccessful, be penalized or personally obliged to pay the costs of the other side?

They are 'penalized' to the extent that should they lose, they incur our-of-pocket costs as well as opportunity costs associated with litigation, i.e. loss of alternative earnings.

For example, barristers are barred from "cherry picking" propitious litigation, or turning away clients whose cases strike them as being without merit, just like taxi drivers generally cannot refuse fares. That's why it's called the Cab Rank rule. Many solicitors will 'self-impose' the same rule, which almost everyone would agree is in the interests of justice.

By all means, the extent to which the Deciding Bodies and the Courts entertain frivolous and fantastical asylum applications is way over the top. But that's a policy issue, it is way above the pay grade of ordinary professionals taking on asylum cases.

reprise

conorh91 wrote: »

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum—and that's really saying something. Can you really be suggesting that legal representatives, should their client's application be unsuccessful, be penalized or personally obliged to pay the costs of the other side?

I am stating the obvious. From the client perspective, when you can't lose, you've nothing to lose. The legal rep rolls the dice, wins some, loses some. The newspaper article linked here spoke of a win rate of 50%. Double your fee for the winners and your home. I dont think they actually win 50% of the cases but maybe they are paid for injunctions etc. This part I don't know.

conorh91 wrote: »

They are 'penalized' to the extent that should they lose, they incur our-of-pocket costs as well as opportunity costs associated with litigation, i.e. loss of alternative earnings.

You are describing the process that some refer to as "no foal no fee". Somewhat synonymous with the profession for a good part of its history but in no way compulsory as a means of reward.

conorh91 wrote: »

For example, barristers are barred from "cherry picking" propitious litigation, or turning away clients whose cases strike them as being without merit, just like taxi drivers generally cannot refuse fares. That's why it's called the Cab Rank rule. Many solicitors will 'self-impose' the same rule, which almost everyone would agree is in the interests of justice.

So I can walk into Gerald Kean - tell him I am broke but want to sue my neighbour for letting his tree fall into my garden and bruise my leg?

I think you are being more than a little naive though you do nod at some "self imposed" criteria. Where do I begin?

Sorry poor and broke client I can't refuse your business, but at the mo, I am

Too busy.......
Ill.......
Not an expert in that area.....

or the easy winner: Fine - I charge €3000 per diem - cash up front.

conorh91 wrote: »

By all means, the extent to which the Deciding Bodies and the Courts entertain frivolous and fantastical asylum applications is way over the top. But that's a policy issue, it is way above the pay grade of ordinary professionals taking on asylum cases.

Yeah, can't really say I agree. Can't say I am an expert either - always willing to learn more from those who are but I think it is bordering on absurd to acknowledge the volume of "frivolous and fantastical asylum applications" and deny the interests served of those who electively promote them ad nauseam.

conorh91

reprise wrote: »

I am stating the obvious. From the client perspective, when you can't lose, you've nothing to lose.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the principle of awarding costs. An unsuccessful applicant stands to have an order for costs made against him.

And although some judges will not order costs against an applicant where the applicant is a recipient of legal aid, the High Court has recently said that this is not to be taken as some legal principle. Elsewhere, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal has shown an increased interest in pursuing costs.

The newspaper article linked here spoke of a win rate of 50%.

That's not true. The Independent article was wrong. 9 out of 10 failed asylum applications fail again at appeal stage.

The Applicant might then go and apply for leave to seek judicial review-that's not an appeal, of course.
4 out of 5 times, final relief will be refused at Judicial Review stage. Even in 'successful' cases, the decision simply reverts back to appeal stage, and very often, the appeal is again refused.

I say again, the Independent article was wrong.

Nobody wants to be representing a series of clients in a series of unsuccessful asylum cases. There is easier money to be got elsewhere.

I think it is bordering on absurd to acknowledge the volume of "frivolous and fantastical asylum applications" and deny the interests served of those who electively promote them ad nauseam.

The barristers who take these cases have no choice in the matter.

The abuse of the asylum process is widely acknowledged by those who have been exposed to it. Applicants themselves will often admit that they are chasing a hopeless case, but they will pursue it because of ineffective Government policy which rewards hopeless cases.

micosoft

reprise wrote: »

I am stating the obvious. From the client perspective, when you can't lose, you've nothing to lose. The legal rep rolls the dice, wins some, loses some. The newspaper article linked here spoke of a win rate of 50%. Double your fee for the winners and your home. I dont think they actually win 50% of the cases but maybe they are paid for injunctions etc. This part I don't know.

I think you need to stop there. This is beyond ridiculous. By definition somebody has to lose a case - the prosecution or defence. It's not for the legal profession to start deciding what cases they take - they represent their client as best they can. The law is set up the people through our representatives in the Dail. That's the route that needs to be taken to reform the law. How the legal profession operate needs reform, but you are barking up the wrong tree here.

AlekSmart

conorh91 wrote: »

The Applicant might then go and apply for leave to seek judicial review-that's not an appeal, of course.
4 out of 5 times, final relief will be refused at Judicial Review stage. Even in 'successful' cases, the decision simply reverts back to appeal stage, and very often, the appeal is again refused.

I say again, the Independent article was wrong.

Nobody wants to be representing a series of clients in a series of unsuccessful asylum cases. There is easier money to be got elsewhere.

The barristers who take these cases have no choice in the matter.

The abuse of the asylum process is widely acknowledged by those who have been exposed to it. Applicants themselves will often admit that they are chasing a hopeless case, but they will pursue it because of ineffective Government policy which rewards hopeless cases.

The nub of the matter !

A reasonable thinking person might propose a limit to such appeals....but I suspect any such attempt will immediately be challenged (Most likely via the Courts),as an unacceptable infringement of the applicants rights under any number of conventions or agreements.

SO....what does the State do regarding these "Hopeless" cases,which comprise so many of Irish applications....how long is the piece of string ?

oscarBravo

AlekSmart wrote: »

A reasonable thinking person might propose a limit to such appeals...

If someone proposed to limit your recourse to justice, would you consider that person "reasonable"?

Are you proposing to limit everyone's right to due process, or just that of asylum seekers?

conorh91

AlekSmart wrote: »

The nub of the matter !

A reasonable thinking person might propose a limit to such appeals....but I suspect any such attempt will immediately be challenged (Most likely via the Courts),as an unacceptable infringement of the applicants rights under any number of conventions or agreements.

As far as I know there is legislation planned to limit the appeals/ review process.

It's part of an EU policy to speed up and co-ordinate the asylum/protection application process.

It's easier than people think to limit appeals/reviews, especially when public policy considerations are at play.

And looking at the asylum statistics, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a major administrative delay that must be resolved in the interests of public policy.

AlekSmart

conorh91 wrote: »

As far as I know there is legislation planned to limit the appeals/ review process.

It's part of an EU policy to speed up and co-ordinate the asylum/protection application process.

It's easier than people think to limit appeals/reviews, especially when public policy considerations are at play.

And looking at the asylum statistics, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that there is a major administrative delay that must be resolved in the interests of public policy.

Positive sounding stuff to me at least.....do we have a time-frame ?


Mind you,it appears not all share my enthusiasm for this reasonable limiting of My rights of access to due process etc etc etc....

OscarBravo: If someone proposed to limit your recourse to justice, would you consider that person "reasonable"?

Are you proposing to limit everyone's right to due process, or just that of asylum seekers?

But to partially address OB's question,I would have no real arguement with reasonable limits to this recourse,particularly as such limits already exist dei-facto in financial terms via legal-aid means testing.

Due Process is just that,a process with inbuilt limits,which in the case of Asylum decision challenges,have been disregarded until the term became meaningless.

Plus,as I understand it,the State can already limit recourse to law for those ajudged to be "vexatious litigants",so it's not an entirely off-the-wall proposal.

There are limits to every aspect of life,and restricted access to legal recourse is but another one of these limits which we largely get along with every day ?

conorh91

AlekSmart wrote: »

Positive sounding stuff to me at least.....do we have a time-frame ?

It's all very vague. But the Minister for Integration was on the radio at the weekend saying he wants to cut the time period to 12 months.

He may be doing a solo run on that. But if he is genuinely articulating a Government intention, then the only practical way of doing that is by somehow limiting Judicial Reviews.

At the moment, the application and appeals process usually takes less than 12 months (in fact, usually 6 or 7 months), it's the judicial review process that really costs the State time and money.

AlekSmart

conorh91 wrote: »

..
At the moment, the application and appeals process usually takes less than 12 months (in fact, usually 6 or 7 months), it's the judicial review process that really costs the State time and money.

I noticed this statistic on the ORAC website alright,and am surprised it does not recieve more coverage.

It tends to show an Asylum Decision System which IS functioning at an acceptable level administratively,however because it's decisions are not sufficiently positive,those unsuccessful applicants acting presumably on legal advice,then embark upon the lenghty,often repeated,process we call Judicial Review...and/or Subsidiary Protection...and/or Leave to Remain....etc etc.

A truly functional and meaningful Asylum System would allow the successful applicants full engagement with well resourced and effecient machinery to facilitate a fresh-start for those people most deserving of it.

Unfortunately,due to the deflection and misuse of scarce National resources,those most deserving are effectively subsidising vexatious opportunists,and for many years at that.

If an application can currently be deliberated and decided upon within that 12 month period,then what can possibly justify individuals being facilitated to remain in country for over a decade subsequent to the decision ??

oscarBravo

AlekSmart wrote: »

Due Process is just that,a process with inbuilt limits,which in the case of Asylum decision challenges,have been disregarded until the term became meaningless.

Hang on. If it has inbuilt limits, how have they been disregarded?

You're basically claiming that asylum seekers have more access to due process than citizens do - how do you make that out?

conorh91

AlekSmart wrote: »

If an application can currently be deliberated and decided upon within that 12 month period,then what can possibly justify individuals being facilitated to remain in country for over a decade subsequent to the decision ??

Part of the problem is a historic hangover.

Ten years ago, applications and appeals were not finalised in 12 months. They might have taken 3 years. Then the applicant would be waiting another few years for Judicial Review, and perhaps a repeat appeal, and perhaps even another Judicial Review, then the subsidiary protection claim might begin. So you can see how it all adds up.

Presently the application and appeal stage is down to 6-7 months, and the Judicial Review is taking, maybe, 3 years. So you can see where the backlog is, it's on the High Court Asylum List.

One way of getting over that is for the RAT, for example, to immediately settle if there have been defects in the determination/ appeals process. They then re-run the appeal correctly (to be sure to be sure) and cure any defects, so that the Applicant has no further grounds for Judicial Review (mar dhea).

That is happening at the moment and that is why the High Court asylum list is shrinking. But it's still too big, so any new Government plans will be interesting.

AlekSmart

conorh91 wrote: »

.

Presently the application and appeal stage is down to 6-7 months, and the Judicial Review is taking, maybe, 3 years. So you can see where the backlog is, it's on the High Court Asylum List.

One way of getting over that is for the RAT, for example, to immediately settle if there have been defects in the determination/ appeals process. They then re-run the appeal correctly (to be sure to be sure) and cure any defects, so that the Applicant has no further grounds for Judicial Review (mar dhea).

That is happening at the moment and that is why the High Court asylum list is shrinking. But it's still too big, so any new Government plans will be interesting.

Do we have any indication that this process,which many will decry as a "Hardening of Attitude",is starting to actually make a difference ?

If so,I would see it as a positive thing.

conorh91

AlekSmart wrote: »

Do we have any indication that this process,which many will decry as a "Hardening of Attitude",is starting to actually make a difference ?

If so,I would see it as a positive thing.

It's impossible to say as yet, because it's a fairly recent move on behalf of the RAT.

However, the fact that you're voluntarily re-running an appeal in 3 months is unlikely to be welcomed universally, because it potentially dramatically shortens the asylum seeker's residence and seriously restricts the scope for the High Court to grant relief if an asylum seeker does get there. Time will tell, I suppose.

AlekSmart

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hang on. If it has inbuilt limits, how have they been disregarded?

You're basically claiming that asylum seekers have more access to due process than citizens do - how do you make that out?

Effectively,and simplistically yes,or at least they have a somewhat greater facility afforded to them,with several support agencies and the system itself offering advice and assistance on available options.

Most of the ordinary populace would have to think quite carefully before embarking upon legal proceedings of any sort.

A Barrister,whom I encountered many years back in a work-related case,summed it up as,"The first thing to consider before embarking on Legal proceedings is,"Can I afford to Lose",if the answer is no,then think VERY carefully before committing".

So yes,I would see it as "easier" for an Asylum Seeker to make full use of the Legal Process,particularly if it acts primarily as a stall mechanism on deportation/repatriation.

walshb

There's a huge difference between asylum seekers appealing and appealing cases compared to the rest of the population here in Ireland. They don't have to pay a cent to appeal and appeal a bogus case.

reprise

conorh91 wrote: »

You seem to be completely oblivious to the principle of awarding costs. An unsuccessful applicant stands to have an order for costs made against him.

And although some judges will not order costs against an applicant where the applicant is a recipient of legal aid, the High Court has recently said that this is not to be taken as some legal principle. Elsewhere, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal has shown an increased interest in pursuing costs.

If an asylum seeker fails to win a case at present, he can have the costs awarded against him and it makes no difference. He/she simply claims inability to pay and is unlikely to be pursued for costs following deportation. I think I made this point already.

conorh91 wrote: »

That's not true. The Independent article was wrong. 9 out of 10 failed asylum applications fail again at appeal stage.

I think I already noted that costs may be awarded at stages along the way. eg winning an injunction. Correct me if I am wrong.

conorh91 wrote: »

The Applicant might then go and apply for leave to seek judicial review-that's not an appeal, of course.
4 out of 5 times, final relief will be refused at Judicial Review stage. Even in 'successful' cases, the decision simply reverts back to appeal stage, and very often, the appeal is again refused.

I say again, the Independent article was wrong.

Nobody wants to be representing a series of clients in a series of unsuccessful asylum cases. There is easier money to be got elsewhere.

The barristers who take these cases have no choice in the matter.

Thats a load of Boll0x.

conorh91 wrote: »

The abuse of the asylum process is widely acknowledged by those who have been exposed to it. Applicants themselves will often admit that they are chasing a hopeless case, but they will pursue it because of ineffective Government policy which rewards hopeless cases.

Yes, and it also rewards those assisting the passage of those hopeless cases. The asylum industry if you will - which if I was to believe you, is part composed of destitute solicitors and barristers dragged away from lucrative business to lose their shirts at the hand of manipulative, fake asylum seekers.

reprise

micosoft wrote: »

I think you need to stop there. This is beyond ridiculous. By definition somebody has to lose a case - the prosecution or defence. It's not for the legal profession to start deciding what cases they take - they represent their client as best they can. The law is set up the people through our representatives in the Dail. That's the route that needs to be taken to reform the law. How the legal profession operate needs reform, but you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I am astounded at the pure ignorance displayed in this post.

Solicitors and barristers are not free. They charge for their services.

They can refuse cases for a slew of reasons.

The easiest barrier to their services is through their fee structure.

Those taking cases for asylum know exactly what they are doing.

Ebola7

Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation need to step up and start control few industries which are prone to employ people without proper documentation. When they will not be able to work for cash in hand and having living costs paid for by government, none of them would want to continuously appeal and stay here 10+ years waiting.

conorh91

reprise wrote: »

If an asylum seeker fails to win a case at present, he can have the costs awarded against him and it makes no difference. He/she simply claims inability to pay and is unlikely to be pursued for costs following deportation. I think I made this point already.

The fact that you think an unsuccessful applicant is "unlikely to be pursued for costs" shows how uninformed your position is.

It is unusual for a successful determining body not to pursue costs.

It is also unusual for an unsuccessful applicant to immediately leave the jurisdiction after he is denied relief. It is still very common for leave to remain to be granted to unsuccessful applicants, who will typically marry an EEA national, either in a sham marriage or a subsisting one.

So to re-emphasize, the determining bodies are pursuing costs, and although those costs may not be recoverable in the short term, this can change as the failed applicant becomes more established in the country. An 8% interest rate will also apply to the costs, and failure to pay will affect the credit rating of an individual against whom an order has been made.

And even if costs are not recoverable after a period of time has elapsed, this really is not the fault of legal representatives.

Thats a load of Boll0x.

That's the only kind of argument you have; no facts, just baseless, uninformed accusations.

walshb

I'm reading a lot of nonsense. Pursued or not for costs why would an asylum seeker give a flying fook? They have absolutely nothing to lose. What's the worst thing that can happen to them if they keep failing? Deportation. Hundreds of 1000s in legal fees for bogus appeals means nothing to them. They can never pay it, and they never will.

The PI case, for example. She was finally turfed out after god knows how much money was spent in the justice system. We still pursuing her for that?

Gatling

Looks like another protest is on going im cork residents are picketing the front gate of a site preventing supplies been delivered

reprise

conorh91 wrote: »

The fact that you think an unsuccessful applicant is "unlikely to be pursued for costs" shows how uninformed your position is.

It is unusual for a successful determining body not to pursue costs.

It is also unusual for an unsuccessful applicant to immediately leave the jurisdiction after he is denied relief. It is still very common for leave to remain to be granted to unsuccessful applicants, who will typically marry an EEA national, either in a sham marriage or a subsisting one.

So to re-emphasize, the determining bodies are pursuing costs, and although those costs may not be recoverable in the short term, this can change as the failed applicant becomes more established in the country. An 8% interest rate will also apply to the costs, and failure to pay will affect the credit rating of an individual against whom an order has been made.

And even if costs are not recoverable after a period of time has elapsed, this really is not the fault of legal representatives.

That's the only kind of argument you have; no facts, just baseless, uninformed accusations.

Dude, no need to cry.

If you believe the stuff your putting up, that's fine. I am just surprised that a profession that depends on persuasion for its very existence has not figured out how to make asylum cases pay and yet they carry on. Oh. Sorry, I almost forgot. They have absolutely no choice in the matter.

Like the next cab right? Except this cab not only has to take you where you are going, it must also expect a payment for services rendered, once in ten times.

reprise

walshb wrote: »

I'm reading a lot of nonsense. Pursued or not for costs why would an asylum seeker give a flying fook? They have absolutely nothing to lose. What's the worst thing that can happen to them if they keep failing? Deportation. Hundreds of 1000s in legal fees for bogus appeals means nothing to them. They can never pay it, and they never will.

The PI case, for example. She was finally turfed out after god knows how much money was spent in the justice system. We still pursuing her for that?

Of course we are. The taxpayers can be assured that its rolling back in with an interest rate of 8% less Western Union fees

conorh91

reprise wrote: »

Dude, no need to cry.

If you believe the stuff your putting up, that's fine. I am just surprised that a profession that depends on persuasion for its very existence has not figured out how to make asylum cases pay and yet they carry on. Oh. Sorry, I almost forgot. They have absolutely no choice in the matter.

Like the next cab right? Except this cab not only has to take you where you are going, it must also expect a payment for services rendered, once in ten times.

You don't know what you're talking about, and it doesn't seem to matter if someone explains it to you.

The thing is, I'm all for a crackdown on rampant abuses within the asylum and protection processes. But some of the anti-immigration lot are a pack of irrational fanatics with no grip on reality at all, just as bad, if not worse, than the bleeding hearts.

reprise

conorh91 wrote: »

You don't know what you're talking about, and it doesn't seem to matter if someone explains it to you.

The thing is, I'm all for a crackdown on rampant abuses within the asylum and protection processes. But some of the anti-immigration lot are a pack of irrational fanatics with no grip on reality at all, just as bad, if not worse, than the bleeding hearts.

It's not a question of sides conorh91. The legal profession is indulging and propagating abuse of the asylum system. Letting them off the hook is no different than excusing politicians and bankers for their abuse of systems and failure to curb excess.

I think it is absurd to indulge the fantasy of the impoverished and noble legal profession bereft of blame. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Watch them try raise the roof if there is even the remotest sniff of reform.

conorh91

reprise wrote: »

It's not a question of sides conorh91. The legal profession is indulging and propagating abuse of the asylum system.

The legal professions are being employed in its abuse, they are not responsible for it.

The people responsible for ongoing abuse in the asylum arena are the Government and its agencies.

By all means, there are lawyers who are only too glad of un-necessary litigation, but their personal motives are irrelevant. There is an in-built obligation to act on behalf of any client, in accordance with the professional code of conduct. A barrister may find himself sanctioned for professional misconduct when he refuses to represent a client whom he feels is not genuine. I don't see how this can be any clearer.

You seem more interested in ascribing abuse to bystanders than you are in finding a solution which is better able to withstand abuse in the first place. That leads me to conclude that you're not interested in a solution, but in blaming people, even without any rational basis for doing so.

Personally, I'm not interested in, or qualified in, making moral judgments about anyone, including asylum seekers. All I'm saying is, we have a problem, lets identify the problem, and fix it. It's not racist, it's not pro-immigration or anti-immigration, it's just realistic.

I think it's a pity the debate so often gets hijacked by ideologues on both sides.

reprise

conorh91 wrote: »

The legal professions are being employed in its abuse, they are not responsible for it.

The people responsible for ongoing abuse in the asylum arena are the Government and its agencies.

I think you are over simplifying the issue if for starters, you completely absolve those who would manipulate the operation of a what is at heart, a fundamentally decent and humane system.

conorh91 wrote: »

By all means, there are lawyers who are only too glad of un-necessary litigation, but their personal motives are irrelevant. There is an in-built obligation to act on behalf of any client, in accordance with the professional code of conduct. A barrister may find himself sanctioned for professional misconduct when he refuses to represent a client whom he feels is not genuine. I don't see how this can be any clearer.

It would be clearer if you would provide a link to a solicitor or a barrister that has been sanctioned for not taking on a client. It would be even better if you would point a link at a few solicitors websites that indicate his/her obligation to take on clients on a no foal no fee basis. Failing that, let me know how asylum seekers are paying for these services. This is my THIRD time to raise this point. You simply banging on with your pet theories is not the road to enlightenment.

conorh91 wrote: »

You seem more interested in ascribing abuse to bystanders than you are in finding a solution which is better able to withstand abuse in the first place. That leads me to conclude that you're not interested in a solution, but in blaming people, even without any rational basis for doing so.

If a thread opens up where we attempt to read each others minds, I'll think of you.

conorh91 wrote: »

Personally, I'm not interested in, or qualified in, making moral judgments about anyone, including asylum seekers. All I'm saying is, we have a problem, lets identify the problem, and fix it. It's not racist, it's not pro-immigration or anti-immigration, it's just realistic.

I think it's a pity the debate so often gets hijacked by ideologues on both sides.

What on earth makes you think you are coming off as anything but a crank with meandering speeches like this?

You strike me as very immature coming on here with an attitude that everyone else is polarised and irrational, except you. Go research the point you are making, back it up, drop the histrionics and feel free to debate like an adult.

conorh91

reprise wrote: »

Go research the point you are making, back it up, drop the histrionics

lol. Histrionics? I'm trying to reason with you here.

It's just odd ranting. I'll leave you to it.

gladrags

[quote="conorh91
l think it's a pity the debate so often gets hijacked by ideologues on both sides.[/quote]

I agree, there was an article in Irish paper on this issue recently,the comments were abhorrent.

The comment section seemed to attract all kinds of radical and irrational comment,and appeared to be organised.

Although the article did not help.

reprise

conorh91 wrote: »

lol. Histrionics? I'm trying to reason with you here.

It's just odd ranting. I'll leave you to it.

If you are intellectually incapable of debating, it's probably better that you do.

rgossip30

reprise wrote: »

If you are intellectually incapable of debating, it's probably better that you do.

Your posts are no better and are now descending further .

AlekSmart

http://www.asylumarchive.com/uploads/1/3/7/3/13738784/4376062_orig.jpg

I notice one of the specific demands made in the Athlone Protest was as follows....

"We Demand The Total Closure of All Hostels-Stop All Deportations."

So,after the State acceeds to these demands,where then,for our Asylum Seekers ?

I'm particularly interested in the notion of "Stopping" All Deportations,which are only granted AFTER the exhaustion of the many appeals processes.

It would therefore appear,that an integral part of these Demands is for The State to disregard it's own judicial process in the same manner as many of the applicants do ?

The protests appear to have ended with some form of compromise being reached...or have they ?